On 8/9/07, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > how is Murdoch worse than William Randolph Hearst or Colonel McCormick > or the many reactionary media barons of previous generations? I don't > remember the US press doing very well during previous imperial wars. >
There is an entertaining article on Slate about how Murdoch had to pay a $1B+ "jerk premium" for the Journal simply because of the "icky feeling the transaction gives the sellers". http://www.slate.com/id/2171601/ ----------------------------------snip All things being equal, a takeover offer from a proven value-creator like Warren Buffett wouldn't have to be as high as an offer from a proven value-destroyer like former AOL Time Warner CEO Gerald Levin. Sometimes a buyer's reputation is so toxic that sellers might charge a higher price to compensate for the icky feeling the transaction gives them. That sure seems to be the case with Murdoch's acquisition of the Wall Street Journal's parent company. What follows is an admittedly crude effort to calculate the Murdoch premium. -raghu.
