Analyst: Murdoch wasted money on Dow Jones buy

Greenfield's assessment is neither insightful nor useful. Does any acquisition made in 2007 look good on November 21 2008? If you're focused exclusively on quarterly earnings—the lazy man's way to look at business—then no one anywhere has made a smart business decision this year. Everyone's stomach is churning. Any reasonable analyst understands that it's just too early—and the economy too chaotic right now—to make a sound judgment on NewsCorp's acquisition of Dow Jones. Full implementation will take years especially given the paradigm and business model shifts going on in publishing. Is Greenfield saying Murdoch paid too much for Dow Jones? One thing we do know is that Murdoch did not overextend NewsCorp's resources in making the acquisition. Good investments take time to ripen. This may or may not have been a good investment, but neither Richard Greenfield nor anyone else is in a position to know at this time.

There are two national papers in the US - USA Today and The Wall Street Journal. These are the ONLY papers across the US with a stable readership number. All the others - NY Times, LA Times, etc. - are in free-fall. Most papers have just a token value or none at all factored into the stock price of their owners. Gannett's stock value is under $2 billion. That means the market values Gannett's TV stations and USA Today, and gives the company ABSOLUTELY NO VALUE WHATSOEVER for the other 100 papers it owns. If Gannett tomorrow decided to sell USA Today, I think they could get $2 billion for it. Similarly, News Corp. may not get the $5 billion it paid for WSJ if Murdoch suddenly decided to sell. Doesn't mean WSJ doesn't have value. Just like the house you bought for $300,000 two years ago is now worth $200,000 . . . it's still a good house. The WSJ still has tremendous value. Murdoch has had his share of flameouts (German PPV, the China satellite debacle), but the winners (myspace, dumping DirecTV to reclaim NWS stock, the FOX Network, FNC) show why Murdoch is the most feared, most visionary of the media. Nearly 15 years ago, Ken Auletta wrote a terrific book, "The Highwaymen". Most of the players in that book are still players today, with the notable exception of Ted Turner. Great insight into the media. Worry about News Corp. when Rupert no longer runs it.

You're kidding, right. The NYTimes is by far the most influential newspaper in the world. Just in the US, it has over 20M unique visitors, while WSJ.com has only about 7M. While the print edition of the WSJ has about 2M subs compared to the NYTs 1.2M, the NYT has a VERY profitable Sunday edition, which the WSJ does not. Murdoch's "magic touch" is largely a myth. Just look at the NY Post, which is still incurring operating losses, according to his own admission during a taping of Charlie Rose.