The saddest leads continued. On the main story, Sarah Ellison and Matthew Karnitsching had the terrible job of writing the first paragraph of their own paper's obituary: "A century of Bancroft family ownership at Dow Jones & Co. is over." Martin Peers and Matthew Karnitschnig handled the background of the obituary: "The Bancroft family decision to sell Dow Jones & Co. capped a three month public tango between them and Rupert Murdoch, the chairman and chief executive of News Corp."

The third paragraph in the background story was the key: "The skirmishing involved a family trustee who wore multiple hats; a legal titan who advised the family but whose firm had worked for News Corp. directors just three years earlier; and owners who wrestled with their consciences over surrendering what many regarded as a public trust."

The news coverage was in the Journal tradition: detailed, illuminating, well researched and written, but this time there was not enough criticism from the Journal staff and unions and ex-employees and not enough outside criticism of the terrible downside for the newspaper business and the public service image it tries to project. (The New York Times wrote, "'It's sad,' said a veteran reporter at one of the domestic bureaus, who did not want to be named because of concerns over his career. 'We held a wake. We stood around a pile of Journals and drank whiskey.'")

The Journal's editorial page, which has forever uncritically touted "free people and free markets" and slavishly supported the Bush Administration and its Iraq War, began even more slavishly sucking up to Murdoch journalism at the opening bell. Its first editorial under Murdoch ("A change in control won't change Journal standards") and its first publisher's letter under Murdoch ("The same standards of accuracy, fairness and authority will apply to this publication, regardless of ownership.") obviously foreshadow the "fair and balanced" news and editorial approach to come.

The editorial even had the gall to say that "critics insult the standards and ethics of our reporters and editors. They aren't potted plants who will abandon the habits of a lifetime because someone else owns Dow Jones."
And then the editorial says without blushing that the "'editorial independence' agreement between Murdoch and the Bancrofts...isn't intended to be some head shield protecting Journal editors from their new owner. We know enough about capitalism to know there is no separating ownership and control. We see the editorial agreement, instead, as an expression of Mr. Murdoch's intention to maintain the values and integrity of the Journal. His invitation to have a member of the Bancroft family join the News Corp. board is a similar gesture of good faith."

Well, that may represent the new classic naivete, or cravenness, of the Journal management but it wouldn't sit with two of the key Bancroft heirs. According to the Journal account, Leslie Hill and the Hills' mother Jane Cox MacElree, who owned or were trustees of 15% of Dow Jones voting power, remained opposed to the sale to the end.
In a teary speech on July 23, Mr. MacElree asked, "How can we sell to the likes of Rupert Murdoch?"

On the day before the announcement, Leslie Hill resigned from the Dow Jones board because of the deal. "The short term financial benefit is difficult to deny," she told fellow directors. "In my opinion, however, it is not enough to outweigh the potential ramifications of the loss of an independent global news organization with unmatched credibility and integrity." When the end came, Leslie Hill and her mother had become patron saints for the Journal staff members fighting the sale to Murdoch.

Years, ago, when I was teaching journalism at California State University at Hayward, I had the honor of giving out a distinguished award for the Society of Professional Journalists to a student at the annual awards banquet. It was the Barney Kilgore award, named after an early and active member of SPJ and one of the editorial stalwarts that helped make the Journal a world class newspaper of independence and quality.

I now recommend that SPJ create an award in honor of the Hill mother and daughter who fought like hell to the bitter end, publicly and eloquently, to save their newspaper from "the likes of Rupert Murdoch." Perhaps that kind of recognition might start a trend to honor family newspaper owners and shareholders who say no when the next Rupert Murdoch comes calling.

Dow Jones and the Wall Street Journal, 1882 to July 31, 2007, RIP

B3, co-founder and co-publisher of an independent newspaper that is not for sale to Rupert Murdoch or anybody else