• Dow Jones executives met with Ron Burkle and MySpace founder Brad Greenspan, who would like to buy the Wall Street Journal but will not, because Rupert Murdoch's gonna get it. [NYT]
  

Your daily dose of Rupert Murdoch news: In an extensive interview with Dow Jones director James Ottaway (who, you'll surely care to remember, controls approximately six percent of the company's voting shares), the recalcitrant stockholder reiterates his disdain for Murdoch, charging that no matter what the News Corp. head says, "It is clear that any promise of editorial independence will not be honored."

There's an orgy of Murdochracy in today's Times. Richard Pérez-Peña and Louise Story report that, should Rupert Murdoch's bid for Dow Jones fail, layoffs at the Wall Street Journal are a near certainty. (Guess what? Same deal if he succeeds.) Perhaps aware of the impending cuts, editor Ellen Pollock has jumped to BusinessWeek, where she will become the Executive Editor and presumably keep an eye out for other talent ready to desert the rapidly sinking WSJ ship. Seeking to avoid Murdoch ownership, certain Dow Jones board members (including the Bancroft clan's Leslie Hill) are meeting with Ron Burkle to see if the grocery magnate can put together a rival bid. ("It is unclear what kind of offer, if any, Mr. Burkle would propose," reports the Journal, "but he has been exploring a structure for Dow Jones that would incorporate an employee stock-ownership plan, according to people close to him.") Finally, the Times talks to Andrew Neil, who swore up and down on Friday that the deal was done, and continues to swear up and down despite denials from both parties.

Oh boy! Says U.K. mag Business:

The Wall Street Journal takes a look at the pact on editorial independence negotiated by Dow Jones and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. in advance of Murdoch's probable takeover of the company. The agreement sets up a board that has approval over the hiring and firing of the top three positions at the Journal as well as providing for injunctive relief in case Murdoch tries to do an end-run around the committee (which, if history is any indication, he almost certainly will). How else does the pact tie the wily Australian's meddling hands?

Meet Brad Greenspan, the 34-year-old L.A. player who won't be the next owner of Dow Jones but, since there's not a lot of other news going on concerning Rupert Murdoch's close-to-inevitable takeover of the company, is probably worth a quick profile. Greenspan was a co-founder of MySpace (although, the Times reports, "there are fundamental disagreements over his role in the company, as there are over other aspects of his career") and objected to News Corp.'s acquisition of the social networking site, claiming (presciently) that the company was worth far more than the bid accepted. Greenspan's something of a character, and even though My Cock has a better chance of buying the Wall Street Journal than he does (it's bidding $63 a share with guarantees of balls-off full editorial independence policy), there's something fairly charming about his cranky episodes.

The Times examines the agreement between Rupert Murdoch and the Dow Jones board to protect the editorial independence of the Wall Street Journal: News Corp. would need the committee's approval to hire or fire editors. News Corp. and Dow Jones will jointly select the board's founding members, who would in turn choose future members.

Registering their disapproval of Rupert Murdoch's impending Dow Jones takeover, Wall Street Journal reporters "across the country chose not to show up to work this morning." A statement from the Newspaper Guild notes that they take this action to "demonstrate our conviction that the Journal's editorial integrity depends on an owner committed to journalistic independence" and remind "Dow Jones management that the quality of its publications depends on a top-quality professional staff." Good for them! But guess what, guys? You're the ones they want leaving anyway. News Corp. management doesn't give a shit about "top-quality professional staff." The organization's leading lights include Shep Smith and Andrea Peyser; you think they really care if you take the morning off?

Pretty great Rupert Murdoch profile in this week's Time. Former Fortune managing editor Eric Pooley caught the mogul in action as negotiations with the Dow Jones board over editorial independence for the Wall Street Journal were being conducted. Here's why the News Corp. head usually gets what he wants:

Rupert Murdoch, speaking today in Poland, told Reuters that his bid for Dow Jones was fairly close to a successful conclusion. Claiming that News Corp. would not raise its offer price, Murdoch said, ""Everything is done. We are just waiting for a final approval of the Bancroft family. The final approval is in the next two, three week's time or not at all." Three weeks? Sweet mother of Christ, can't we just get this over with already? We're dying.

Reuters is reporting that "News Corp. and Dow Jones have reached an agreement to protect the editorial independence of the Dow Jones news operations." [CNBC]

After yesterday's slapdash jam-job, the Times redeems itself this morning with a lengthy piece on Rupert Murdoch's ties to China. There's not a lot that comes as news to those who (for, say, work reasons) obsessively read every news story about the News Corp. mogul, but for the casual observer it's a fairly good summary. Let us break it down for you.

An agreement on "editorial independence" between Dow Jones and News Corp. could be announced early today, putting Rupert Murdoch one step closer to owning the Wall Street Journal. Of course, there are about seventy-three other steps, but, hey, it's movement. [WSJ]

Both today's New York Times and New Yorker offer lengthy pieces about Rupert Murdoch. And when we say lengthy, we're not exaggerating: The New Yorker piece clocks in at 7409 words, while the Times offers a more sprightly 3868-word story. If you're interested in the Murdoch story but don't have the eight hours it would take to get through 11,000+ nouns and verbs, what's the better choice?

On Friday, the Dow Jones board gave News Corp. its proposal to safeguard the editorial independence of the Wall Street Journal; News Corp. "reacted coolly," and responded yesterday with "a significantly altered draft." News Corp.'s version offers a 15-member board, with one seat for the Bancrofts and five members appointed independently. The board would have no authority over the hiring or firing of personnel including the WSJs publisher. Nevertheless, the two sides are supposedly close to agreement, according to an insider who stipulates that "a deal between Mr. Murdoch and the Bancrofts' advisers did not mean that either the Dow Jones board or the family, which controls 64 percent of the shareholder votes, would approve the arrangement."

Looks like the New York Times is anxious to get that Jill Abramson-helmed investigation of Rupert Murdoch out to the public as quickly as possible—if Matt Drudge and his caps-lock is to be believed.

With G.E. out of the picture, the Dow Jones board is preparing a plan to safeguard the Wall Street Journal's editorial independence before they sell it to Rupert Murdoch. [Guardian]

G.E. and Pearson have decided not to make a bid for Dow Jones. Rupert Murdoch can almost taste it now. [TV Week]

Still more Dow Jones action! The big news: The board, "frustrated with the pace of the Bancroft family's negotiations with News Corp., said it would take over talks on the future of the company." This is viewed as a sign that Rupert Murdoch is going to get what he wants: "Because the Dow Jones board is obliged to pursue the best result for all shareholders, the handoff makes the $5-billion offer from Murdoch's News Corp. harder to beat for potential rivals."

Back in March, you couldn't talk about the New York Times without someone mentioning how evil Wall Street wanted the company to change its share structure, a system that puts the Sulzberger clan in charge of the majority of seats on the Times board. (Recap! Each "Class B" share, mostly owned by family members, is worth 10 "Class A" shares, which can be bought by the general public. Yes, even by you.) But now, the issue of changing the Times' share structure almost never comes up. Today, for example, the Times presented at the Newspaper Association of America's Mid-Year Media Review, and nary a word was spoken about the share structure. Not only that, but no one even asked about it. Interesting! (Also, Pinch Sulzberger wasn't there, naturally. You never know what he might say!) So just what is on the minds of the Times executives these days?