2007-08-01 14:06:53 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
TRF:
the New York Times is for the most part a good paper. It's disturbing that you would want to put out of buisness a paper that has the balls to expose Bush's illegal activities. Sounds like you would be more happy living in a dictatorship. so why not leave? China's waiting for you
2007-08-02 12:51:30 · update #1
I'm foolish enough to actually give Murdoch the benefit of the doubt and wait to see if he tries to change the format or content of the paper.
2007-08-01 14:16:00 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
no--it somewhat is the trash the prosperous rhetoric. you have 2 the thank you to get carry of capital for a corporation. you have some thing like Solyndra the place due dilligence wasn't completed--money replaced into exceeded out like a halloween handle and 0.5 a thousand million flushed down the drain. Or--an thought would be pitched to those wall street adult males--finished with corporation plan--sales projections etc. After doing actual due dilligence--money may be lent if the corporation thought has sufficent advantage. Wall street has a plenty plenty plenty plenty extra valuable music checklist of investment winners than the government does. it somewhat is the reason the governement desires to enable the inner maximum sector attend to such issues. inspite of the incontrovertible fact that-by skill of elevating taxes on those persons--you narrow back the quantity of investment--and don;t advance jobs. the only factor which will force the financial equipment sustainably is the inner maximum sector--once you waste money interior the government sector in this "green" crap that would not have a prayer of being conceivable by way of fact it somewhat is not close to to being aggressive with fossil fuels yet--and once you desire to place a substantial tax burden on the financial industry properly--we've been doing this antibusiness crap for 3 years--hasn't labored yet--all we ought to coach is 4 trillion in extra debt.
2016-10-13 10:32:10 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I thought that many of the so-called intellectual contributors on this site said that all newspapers were owned by Jews. Murdoch isn't Jewish. How dare he own a newspaper in the USA? To answer the question...who cares who owns the various papers as long as they are allowed to print the news as it really is...which none of them do. Reporters are as biased as all of us and write the way they feel. Good luck to the Wall Street Journal.
2007-08-01 20:02:54 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
A very sound business decision by both the WSJ and News Corp.
Like the editorial in today's WSJ said: "No sane businessman pays a premium of 67% over the market price for an asset he intends to ruin."
As a subscriber, I look forward to the increased services and increased access to hard business news this merger will bring.
2007-08-01 14:13:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
In addition to increasing the popularity and subscriptions of the WSJ, it might force the NY Times a bit more toward the center from the left.
2007-08-01 14:13:53 · answer #5 · answered by GIVRO 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
That he's the Ted Turner of the new decade. Who in their right mind would invest in a newspaper. It's a dying form of media.
2007-08-01 14:14:02 · answer #6 · answered by Franklin 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I wont be buying the Wall Street Journal any time soon, if ever...and I wont trust anything that the Dow says either.
Murdoch is an old crook!
2007-08-01 14:14:02 · answer #7 · answered by Fedup Veteran 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Maybe he will get some good people in there and put the N.Y. Times out of business.
2007-08-01 14:11:06 · answer #8 · answered by trf6x6 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋