Murdoch Street Journal

It's done. Rupert Murdoch has bought the Wall Street Journal. Today the Wall Street announced the deal that has led to heavy disputes in the Bancroft family. The Bancrofts hold 64% of the Dow Jones controlling stocks and at least two thirds needed to approve of the deal.
It seems that the take-over by media mogul Murdoch had more to do with US newspaper heritage and media sociology than with finance. (Money was probably no issue with a proposed price of $60 per share that represents a 69% premium to the pre-offer stock price).The WSJ is one of the oldest family owned newspapers in the US and now becomes part of the stable of Murdoch including media brands as Fox News, MySpace, National Geographic, Times of London and many others. And becoming part of a media conglomerate that produces content for the masses was probably the biggest hurdle to take for the family. What will become of the WSJ stature once taken over by News Corp? Can it maintain it's position as one of the worldwide references for financial news? These questions relate to an interesting discussion taking place the the media industry: is popular culture bad for us? Is popularised news bad for readers and viewers? Some two years ago Steven Jonhson published "Everything is good for you. How popular culture is making us smarter". This book like the book from Gust de Meyer (De beste smaak is de slechte smaak) demonstrate that the popular culture of videogames, television (including reality-TV), film and Internet has made people more intelligent. The complexity of the media and content is posing new challenges to our minds that make our minds sharper. Interesting to watch how the WSJ will continue to challenge its readers.