By Frank Ahrens
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 4, 2007

Tabloid king Rupert Murdoch's bold bid to take over Dow Jones & Co. and grab the Wall Street Journal is Topic A in the media world this week. You have burning questions! We have answers to shock and amaze!

Q Why now?

A The timing is right -- if not for Dow Jones, then for Murdoch. Conventional wisdom says Dow Jones is vulnerable, having lost more than half of its share value over the past seven years. News Corp. insiders say this is about Murdoch and his Web vision. Murdoch is hosting a California conference on News Corp.'s digital future in coming days. News Corp. and NBC are launching an ambitious plan to show TV programs on Yahoo, AOL and other Web platforms this summer. Murdoch already has a dino-sized Web footprint in social-networking (MySpace.com), TV (AmericanIdol.com) and sports (FoxSports.com). What does he lack? A Web business-news presence, which Murdoch sees as a big moneymaker.

What happens next?

Analysts agree on one thing: Dow Jones is in play. After that, who knows? The Bancroft family -- they control Dow Jones' stock -- may think: "If Murdoch will pay $60 per share, maybe he'll pay $65." Rival bidders may emerge, though none has poked up his head yet. If the Dow Jones board tells all suitors to go pound sand, it could face a wave of lawsuits from shareholders who've watched their Dow Jones stock idle at $35 per share for the past two years, not to mention the new investors who jumped into the Tuesday buying frenzy.

Wait -- who are the Bancrofts?

Descendants of Clarence W. Barron, father of the modern Journal and, until now, the only Dow Jones shareholders who matter. They are a geographically and ideologically disparate family; so far, most say they oppose the sale to Murdoch. But not all. Murdoch will attempt to woo family members on the fence and persuade others to accept his offer.

Is Dow Jones a good company? Is the Wall Street Journal a good business?

For years, analysts have said that Dow Jones is a "C-class" company with an "A-class" newspaper. The company goofed when it bought business data provider Telerate in the 1980s, which lost money. Advertising in the Journal has never fully recovered from the dot-com bubble burst and the ad slump caused by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. However, unlike nearly every other daily newspaper, the Journal charges for its online content -- Journal Online subscriptions grew 20 percent in the first quarter of this year.

Is Murdoch good for journalism, or not?

To many, Murdoch is nothing less than Citizen Kane, using his media properties to advance his interests. But editors at the Times of London, which Murdoch bought in 1981, report that the paper has doubled its number of foreign correspondents in recent years, even as U.S. papers are shedding costly overseas bureaus.

Can anything stop Murdoch from getting Dow Jones?

If he gets past the Bancroft family, not much. Like all deals, the feds would look at this one for antitrust and media-ownership red flags. The Journal is based in New York, where Murdoch owns a television station -- potential red flag -- but Murdoch will argue that the Journal is a national, not local, newspaper and that his deal is bulletproof.

Has Murdoch ever failed at a business venture?

In the late 1990s, Murdoch's oldest son, Lachlan, persuaded his father to invest $577 million in Australian telecom One.Tel. It crashed in 2001, wiping out the Murdoch investment.

What's up with Lachlan, anyway?

The tattooed rugby player ran the New York Post from 2002 to 2005 and was long assumed to be next in line to run the News Corp. empire. But at a spry 76, Rupert Murdoch shows no signs of flagging. Lachlan left the Post two years ago and headed back to Australia with his former Wonderbra-model wife, Sarah, who said late last year the couple is quite happy living Down Under. Now, younger Murdoch sire James, a Harvard dropout who runs Dad's BSkyB satellite TV network in Britain, seems the likely heir -- if the elder Murdoch doesn't prove immortal.

Does Rupert really rule the media world?

The jowly, often-unsmiling Murdoch is a convenient bogeyman for Big Media foes who fear the Aussie wants to own the world. It has been speculated that he was the model for the villain in the James Bond movie "Tomorrow Never Dies" -- a mogul who tries to start a world war to boost ratings and circulation for his global media empire.

News Corp. is a huge company, but, hyperbole aside, here are the facts and numbers: CBS-owned television stations reach as many U.S. viewers as those owned by Murdoch. Unlike CBS, Murdoch owns no radio stations. Unlike the Walt Disney Co., he owns no theme parks, no national cable sports network. Unlike Tribune Co., he owns only one U.S. newspaper, not 16. Unlike Time Warner, Murdoch does not own a cable system or the world's largest collection of magazines. Unlike Sony, he does not own an electronics division.

And he no longer owns DirecTV, which was once thought to be the American piece to his global satellite network. It may well be Rupert's world, but he doesn't own it all. Yet.