10 Stories You Won't Read About Dow Jones' Merger Missteps

6. There seems to be only one kind of independence the Journal cares about: reporting independence. How about editorial independence? Why doesn't anyone there talk about how the editorial page's view would be preserved under Murdoch but not other owner in the media? Why isn't that pointed out? Ron Burkle sure wouldn't preserve that. I think that's a great point in favor of Murdoch.

7. The resumes are flying out of the bid-for company, yet it never gets reported. (And everyone knows it.)

8. The numbers are so bad since the year began that the hypothetical company in question would be laying off people right now, but management wants to wait because it would look bad and make the need for a deep-pocketed bidder much more evident. (Wouldn't do to look like they need Murdoch, would it?)

9. The paper seems reluctant to report on the myriad failures to diversify away from anything except for newspaper. (So what? The reason you needed the diversification was to pay for the paper. Instead, all we hear about is the need to preserve purity. You know how preserve purity? You make money away from it.)

10. The new travesty: How could all of these promotions be made today fully knowing that the paper and the company will most likely be sold? What the heck? Where's the questioning and reporting of that?

Nah. Too close to home.

This story, if it had been any other business, not just the press, would have produced an endless series of stories about how rogue this company has been, how anti-shareholder, frankly, how disgraceful this whole episode has been.

Fortunately for Dow Jones, its executives, its board members and the clueless controlling family, the company owns the most important business newspaper in the country.

What a break.

>To order reprints of this article, click here: Reprints