THE RUPERT AGENDA

No, this is not a crime story by Robert Ludlum. It’s a lot more intricate than that, and it could take years to play out. We may never know who-dunnit. Fact is, we may never even know what the “it” was. This is a story about people and their agendas. Everyone has an agenda, and media people have them in 3D. Financial media people have them in 3D and High Definition. The personal agenda of a financial media person can have an impact on your own financial well-being. Simple examples: Product X is made by a company that you work for, or that you have invested in, or that your company depends on for its business. A print or TV editor with an agenda can downplay or accentuate news about Product X…A radio talk-show host can steer conversations towards or away from a discussion on Issue X….An editorial writer can put Product X in a good or bad light. And so it goes. These agenda activations may be legal or illegal, moral or immoral. They are difficult to spot, and even more difficult to prove. But make no mistake, they exist like oxygen in the air exists. Conflicting agendas are common in all walks of life and in all facets of the financial world. The “market” has its own ways of reconciling conflicting agendas, sooner or later. Just hope you’re on the right side until the conflict is reconciled. Rupert Murdoch has finally closed the deal on his purchase of the Dow Jones Corporation, and its jewel in the crown, The Wall St. Journal, for some $5 billion. Rupert has worldwide media holdings. The London Times and The Fox Network are but two of the higher profile ones. The New York Post and the Daily Sun in the UK are but two of the lower profile ones. The Post thrives on bombast and gossip. The Sun’s claim to fame, aside from having the highest circulation in the UK, is their daily featured photo of topless “page 3” girls. All part of The Rupert Agenda. Rupert’s purchase of the Journal now gives him ownership of one of the pre-eminent financial publications in the world (The Financial Times and The Economist, both published in London, are arguably better.) And how might the Rupert Agenda---pro or con on this or that---affect your own personal financial decisions, for better or for worse? What will The Rupert Agenda be? First, anyone who spends $5 billion on something that may be worth only $3 billion has got to have some fierce agenda to validate his investment. Dow Jones stock had been selling for about $35 a share before Murdoch made his offer of $60 per share. What was he thinking? Murdoch’s track record in other acquisitions has been on the nasty side. One prime example is The London Times. Despite promises that he would leave it editorially intact, he converted one of the world’s finest (though financially bereft) newspapers into a tabloid with a growing emphasis on the old journalistic mantra, “If it bleeds, it leads.” Part of The Rupert Agenda there, without doubt, was to turn red ink into black ink. In his negotiations with the Bancroft family who controlled the voting stock in Dow Jones, he reportedly promised that he and they would work out some committee arrangement which would give the Bancrofts major clout in choosing top brass for the Journal. The Bancrofts wanted Rupert’s money, but not his say in how the paper was to be run. The Rupert Agenda, needless to say, is to control the paper from the very top on down. How long will that committee compromise last? Don’t hold your breath. In a more serious vein, The Rupert Agenda involves more than trying to make a buck on the Journal. He has launched a financial TV network via his Fox holdings. That could combine powerfully with the Journal’s editorial assets. He is known to speak his mind on political issues---sometimes from his own mouth, sometimes as a ventriloquist with his editorial people. The Journal gives him another outlet, one very high on the credibility and integrity scales. News vs. Opinion---Can You Tell the Difference? The Journal has long been known to be excellent at its news gathering and reporting. While its slant is, of course, on business, it covers a wide spectrum of life, and it does so with the highest standards. It gives extensive coverage to consumer concerns, arts and cultural interests, medical and legal issues and much more. As such, it has been a bible for me for 40+ years. On the other hand, its editorial pages are notoriously far on the right edges of our political spectrum. That’s its privilege of course. No one who reads the Journal’s news stories is required to read the editorial pages. Given the new breadth to Rupert’s holdings via the Journal acquisition, The Rupert Agenda might be to play a bigger role in the political arenas. That can be done subtly and effectively by tweaking the editorials and by giving more or less access on the op-ed page to those who favor or disfavor his Agenda, respectively. Old columnists and op-ed contributors fade away, and new ones replace them. Simple enough. Do you suspect that Rupert’s purchase of the Journal was in any way connected to the beginnings of the 2008 elections? Coincidence? Ditto for The Rupert Agenda in the financial world: Certain companies and institutions get better access and positioning to tell their stories on the Journal’s pages, and some get shut out, or shunted to the bottom of page 57. The companies that make up the Dow Jones averages can be changed. Some companies and/or industries get praised in the opinion section, some get hack-sawed. Good earnings announcements can get prominent placement, or minimal. These are all ripple effects of an agenda, and they can all affect investments, employment, profitability and image of virtually any or all American companies. Of course, such agendas have been at work for many years by the departing owners. We won’t know until The Rupert Agenda has taken effect whether it’s better or worse than the departing agendas. But all those who rely on the news and opinions found in the Wall St. Journal must become super-vigilant and somewhat cynical. You owe it to yourself to explore other sources of financial information (realizing as you do that those other sources also have their own agendas), rather than rely solely on the Journal, if that had been your habit. What you used to take as gospel in the Journal you now must take as propaganda, at least until you feel you’ve safely discerned how The Rupert Agenda might affect you. And note well, part of The Rupert Agenda will be to tell you, in as many ways as possible, that you can believe in and trust Rupert’s Agenda. [Full Disclosure---My agenda: I am very concerned that too much media power can reside in too few people, and the public at large is not alert enough to sense the impact of that. The Murdoch takeover of the Journal, coupled with its presumably being blended into the Fox Business Channel, presents a potential danger in slanting business news unfairly. I’ve spent decades in the media---all forms, radio, tv, newspapers, magazines, lecturing---and I shall use my experience and instincts to track The Rupert Agenda and keep you informed of how it can lead you into places you should be avoiding.]