Apparently, I am not the only one that feels that the New York Times' 'expose' on News Corp lacked any depth or provided new information on the manner in which Murdoch runs his business. (Paidcontent) You really have to consider the NYT's motives in this given they are themselves a family run operation similar to Dow Jones that has been left behind by the media revolution and they ran an editorial two weeks ago supporting the family's (supposed) wish to stay independent. It was more than disingenuous and perhaps in the interests of full disclosure they should have mentioned their own dual equity arrangement that keeps the Ochs/Sulzberger fully in control and the public shareholders out in the cold.
(As I may have mentioned, I retain some deep seated resentment towards Rupert Murdoch because as a 14 year old newspaper seller in Melbourne Australia they raised the price of the Herald from 8cents to 10cents and in the process did me out of a virtually guaranteed 2cents on every sale. That added a lot to my daily take and I soon realized that selling newspapers on a street corner was no kind of future).
Murdoch should get Dow Jones if for no other reason that he is willing to rebuild the franchise to compete in a new media, connected and multi-channel world. The Brancrofts aren't and I think that most people would like to see the Wall Street Journal retain and perhaps increase its influence and standing not just in the US but internationally. Murdoch has proven News Corp can manage and grow substantial media properties and Dow Jones will be no different. It is stupid to assume that any proprietorial media property is without bias or doesn't reflect some level of influence from the owner; but, customers (and staff) either support it or not and Murdoch (or the NYT) are not going to undercut the credibility of their properties to spite their revenue.