War at the Wall Street Journal Read Online Free

morning's paper. And I have read it, and I can assure you I don't feel it's faintly anti-Murdoch." Murdoch thanked Sulzberger for the heads-up. The two continued chatting, sharing their thoughts on the state of their business. Despite their differences and the tussles still to come, they were united in a special way, for there were probably no other two men on the face of the Earth more committed to the future of newspapers. Murdoch, straightforward as always, talked about what he hoped to do with the
Journal
and did not conceal his irritation at the
Times's
coverage of the Dow Jones deal. Despite the tension, their conversation was friendly, almost playful.
    As the boat neared the Statue of Liberty, the guests gathered around a large rectangular table for dinner, exchanged pleasantries, and avoided the potentially awkward topic of Murdoch's latest purchase. They returned to Diller's building for a quick tour, dutifully praising the plump, cavernous structure. As the evening came to its close, the Sulzbergers walked out onto the street. All the other guests, the moguls, editors, and moviemakers, had cars and drivers waiting in expertly chosen locations to whisk them off to their splendid sheets. The Sulzbergers found themselves contemplating the near impossibility of finding a cab on the piers on the far West Side of Manhattan at that hour. Taking pity, a fellow partygoer offered them a ride in his car, which they accepted. As they clambered into the car, Arthur laughed like a kid, very much unlike the media titan he was. "Wow," he said. The star-studded evening had left its impression.
    Â 
    The next morning, Murdoch was in his office working on his next potential acquisition, swapping his once coveted but now stagnating social networking site MySpace for a stake in Yahoo!, and fuming. Under a spare headline—"Notes About Competition"—there was the editorial Sulzberger had warned him about. Far from an innocuous mention, the
Times
had, Murdoch felt, fired a shot across town to let him know the newspaper was watching him. "If we were in any other business, a risky takeover of a powerful competitor might lead to celebration," the editorial began. "Not in our business. Good journalism, which is an essential part of American democracy, thrives on competition."
    The piece did some predictable tut-tutting about the cutbacks in national and foreign coverage at the
Times
's impoverished competition, "such formerly formidable competitors as
The Los Angeles Times,
" before praising the pre-Murdoch version of the
Journal.
Then, as Murdoch read on, the tone of the piece changed and he became the center of its attack: "The
Times
and the
Journal
have reported extensively about Mr. Murdoch's meddling in his media properties: How he reneged on his promise of editorial independence for the
Times
of London and how, to curry favor with China's leaders, his satellite broadcaster, Star TV, stopped carrying news from the BBC." The editorial concluded by suggesting, "The best way for Mr. Murdoch to protect his $5 billion investment is to protect the
Journal
's editorial quality and integrity." Doing so would "be good news for all Americans."
    Murdoch, who prided himself on being direct, stewed at Sulzberger's false assurances the night before. Here it was again, a piece attacking him in all the most predictable ways, dredging up examples he had long tired of answering for. "If that editorial wasn't anti-Murdoch," he thought, "I'd hate to see his version of what is." Murdoch dashed off a letter, beginning a new game of jousting with his crosstown enemy.
    "It was a pleasure seeing you again last night, although I don't agree with your characterization of today's editorial," he wrote. Then he stridently denied the
Times's
accusations point by point: "I don't know how many times I have to state that I did not take the BBC off Star TV for political reasons, nor have I ever given any sort of political instructions, or even guidance, to one