In mid-May it was reported that the Chancellor had concluded that what the University of Colorado needed was an endowed university chair for a Professor of Conservative Thought and Policy, Conservative Thought he apparently believes, being somewhat different from normal thought, a belief in which he may be correct.

The wonderful thing about having George Bush as president is that a commentator can write about the same subject repeatedly and it will always be timely and fresh. That is because when George Bush finds a bad thing to do, he does it repeatedly because he’s too sure of his own good judgment to notice that it’s a bad thing.

Lowest common denominator. That’s what George Stephanopolous and Charles Gibson of ABC news were appealing to during the first half of the debate for which they recently served as moderators. That explains the reason for the really dumb questions they not only posed but pursued with remarkable, if mindless, persistency about lapel pins, helicopter landings, bitter people and sermons, none of which has the slightest relevance to determining which of the debaters would be a better president... Since appealing to the lowest common denominator was the goal of Messrs. Gibson and Stephanopolous, I have a suggestion for a future program that will draw even more viewers than did the debate and will appeal to an even lower common denominator. They should interview Ashley ["Dupre"] Youmans for an hour and a half.

What does George Bush have in common with prostitutes? For the answer see the end of the next paragraph.

As was observed in last week’s column, photographs of French president François Mitterand’s funeral, showed his widow, mistress and their daughter, all gazing sadly at the casket. Had Eliot Spitzer died while consorting with prostitutes there would have been no photographs of the prostitutes standing sadly by the coffin with Mr. Spitzer’s wife and daughters. That’s because prostitutes don’t do funerals. Here is the answer to the riddle. Neither does George Bush.

George Bush doesn’t even like to be in the presence of coffins even though it is thanks to him that the sad remains of more than 4000 service personnel have found resting places in coffins.

It would be unfair to compare the response of Myanmar Junta leader, Than Shwe, to Cyclone Nargis to George Bush’s response to Hurricane Katrina. For one thing, the two disasters were separated by thousands of miles. Furthermore, Burma initially rejected all foreign aid whereas Mr. Bush only rejected aid from Cuba.

As the recent hearings show, by not tracking the purposes of the disbursements, there is no risk of embarrassing anyone because of the failure of the recipient to satisfactorily complete the work for which it was paid. As teenagers would say, if asked, “That is SO Iraq.”

Health insurance companies are constantly looking for new ways to make money. Two of the major impediments to their quest are sick people and the drugs they need.

Just-kind-of-hardcore-strident excerpts:

If there were only one agency (and there’s probably not) that has consistently enjoyed the benefits lavished on it by an ignorant president who continuously diminishes its standing in the world of science, it would be the Environmental Protection Agency. No other agency has so thoroughly given in to the importunings of a president who lives in constant fear of what science might offer if left to its own devices, science being a branch of knowledge that cannot be controlled by him or Dick Cheney.

We live in a country run by a consummate liar whose most egregious lies have resulted in (a) the deaths of more than 4000 American servicemen and women, (b) the infliction of life altering wounds on more than 20,000 servicemen and women, and© millions of people in a far-off land becoming homeless and refugees in foreign countries.

Great stuff! If only this blogger could somehow get someone in the mainstream media to pay attention to his concerns! For example, by writing, or calling, or at least coming home for the holidays this year.

[The Human Race & Other Sports]

Buzz among Journal-ites is that Brauchli is giving up his estimated $3 million to $5 million Journal severance to take the Post job, since News Corp. inserted a non-compete clause into the deal when Brauchli exited the Journal after briefly serving under Murdoch confidante — and eventual Brauchli replacement — Robert Thomson. UPDATE: As noted in the comments, Portfolio's sources have stated that Brauchli has been assured his non-compete doesn't apply to the WaPo job. It's entirely possible our source, who heard second-hand, is wrong on this score.

There would be an element of self-cleansing in Brauchli returning News Corp.'s money. When he exited the Journal, there was scattered grumbling that the once-loved editor had abdicated too readily to Rupert Murdoch and his henchmen, perhaps motivated by his eventual payout. One former Journal staffer complained to us at the time:

He was supposed to be the bulwark, preserving original Wall Street Journal journalistic standards against the expected onslaught by News Corp. But what did he do? Certainly not what John Carrol and Dean Baquet did at the LA Times. They defiantly resisted efforts to weaken the newspaper, stood up for standards, spoke out publicly and ultimately made principled resignations. Marcus, by contrast, rather than making a peep of public protest, readily agreed to being bought off for a large sum and also signed a non-disparagement agreement. So much for principled stands.

For Weymouth, Brachli's hiring marks a chance to reverse some of the work of her uncle, Donald Graham, still chief executive of the Post Co. It was Graham who refocused the Post locally, even as the Times stepped up its national ambitions. "He has backed the Post into an economic cul-de-sac," one industry observer whispers. "The papers that are going to fail first are the city ones."

Then again, Brauchli was also considered a Web-aware modernizer at the Journal, and his battlefield experience there trying to merge the disparate cultures of Dow Jones and News Corp. will come in handy as the Post tries to integrate its largely independent website with the print newsroom. It's possible Weymouth plans to maintain a local focus in print while drawing on Brauchli's Web savvy and general management experience to grow washingtonpost.com.

[Washington Post]

Robert Thomson, former editor of Murdoch's London Times, is a charmer, as we've written. (Disclosure, I used to work for him at the Financial Times.) A former colleague reported that the Times newsroom was "the happiest place to work on Fleet Street." But his emollient side was not so obviously on display at Monday's meeting: according to two attendees, Thomson berated the assembled reporters for their lack of aggression in reporting news and their arrogance. The Journal, he said, took this attitude: "If we haven't written about it, it's not news."

Now that is apparently a general complaint of Murdoch and his henchmen, who want the Journal to compete more fiercely for both political and business scoops—and the criticism not entirely unwarranted. Thomson, Australian and 30 years to the day Murdoch's junior, is the product of the more robust newsroom cultures of Sydney and London; Journal reporters are unaccustomed to such frank talk from their bosses. And all that Thomson meant to say—we understand—was that the Journal was now in an ultra-competitive world in which it had to be conscious of the challengers, old and new. Uncontroversial enough.

But his sensitive audience took his remarks the wrong way. The newspaper had just that morning published an exclusive on the gigantic $23bn bid by Mars and Warren Buffett for Wrigley, the chewing gum makers. According to one attendee, stock market reporter Jim Browning said he was "personally offended" by the suggestion that the newspaper's reporters didn't try to break news. Thomson's joke—that former managing editor Paul Steiger was extremely competitive on the softball field—failed to defuse the tension.

The Journal is still reeling after News Corporation executives pushed out Marcus Brauchli in order to install a more amenable managing editor at the paper. It has only been a week. Until the new hierarchy is clear, the staff will naturally be jumpy and quick to take offense. Murdoch's newspaper acquisition drive still makes as much sense as we thought a week ago. However, if News Corporation can't even win over the potential collaborators, the occupation of the Journal will be all the more bitter. The infighting is already pretty ugly.

• Nik Deogun, the head of Money & Investing and widely seen as a potential quisling, is now telling colleagues he's not in line for the managing editor job. Some of his more fevered internal critics thought they detected glee on the day Marcus Brauchli's departure became public.
• Paul Steiger and Marcus Brauchli, the last two managing editors of the independent Journal, have taken the brunt of newsroom anger. "Steiger who is being villified for advocating the sale to Murdoch when he had so much to gain from it. This guy was beloved and now is being talked about like a greedy bastard who is no different than the Wall Street guys brought down on his watch. People are talking about how he who sold out so he could afford his young 30-something wife." (Here's her bosom-revealing blog.)
• Kathryn Kranhold, the Journal's much-respected reporter on GE, has quit with no new job in the offing. "It's a huge loss," says a colleague.
• Bill Grueskin, deputy managing editor, has commissioned an investigative piece on the eviction of Marcus Brauchli—and the special committee that was supposed to protect the Journal's editorial independence from Murdoch. (In charge is Steve Stecklow, one of the paper's most rabid investigative reporters.) But ungenerous colleagues suspect his position is vulnerable, and Grueskin is merely casting himself as a defender of the Journal's integrity, and a martyr.
• John Bussey, the DC bureau chief, is touted by allies as a candidate for the top editorial job. But he must be one of the most widely disliked executives at the paper: since we mentioned his name, the hostile tips have outnumbered the plaudits by about 2 to 1. More on Bussey later.
• Alix Freedman, supposed guardian of the Journal's ethics, was forced to explain to a group of new employees why she had killed the newspaper's exclusive on the ouster of Brauchli. At the orientation, she explained that the paper didn't like to air its "dirty laundry". Um, isn't that what newspapers are supposed to do?

This time around, the decision went up the chain of command to Alix Freedman, the departmental managing editor for standards and ethics, we're told. Freedman in turn asked Brauchli for his opinion, and he was of the opinion that the story should be put on the back burner—presumably while he finished ironing out the details of his own departure.

After the embarrassment of getting scooped in their own house, Journal bosses swore it would never happen again. But it has. This time around, the decision went up the chain of command to Alix Freedman, the departmental managing editor in charge of ethics and standards, according to our source. The tipster says that Freedman then called Brauchli for his opinion, who in turn asked Freedman to hold the story—presumably to give him time to finish ironing out the details of his exit—and she obliged.

Robert Thomson, the former editor of News Corporation's Times of London, was brought in by Rupert Murdoch as publisher of the Wall Street Journal. His original job description allowed him oversight of editorial matters not customary for a publisher; he's interim managing editor until a permanent successor is chosen and already, this morning, addressed the Journal's editors. News Corporation's plans to turn the business newspaper into a national conservative daily are basically Thomson's; with Brauchli gone, he's free to impose his will. WINNER

Nikhil Deogun. Historians of Nazi occupations were always surprised how quickly parts of the political establishment accomodated themselves to the new masters. The term quisling derives from the puppet leader who did the bidding of Norway's Nazi occupiers. If there is to be a quisling at the Journal it will be Nikhil Deogun. (Okay, mean: let's just say he's the equivalent of Charles Douglas Home, who ratted out Tina Brown's husband, Harry Evans, to become editor of Murdoch's Times of London, in 1982.) Calcutta-bred Deogun, a deputy managing editor, heads up Money & Investing, the section of the newspaper least in need of an overhaul. He's covered politics from Washington, DC, a key area for the new Journal; friendly with Gary Ginsberg, one of Murdoch's key lieutenants and a contact of Deogun's from his days as a media reporter; and political to the point of Machiavellian. "He's ambitious enough to do what Murdoch wants," says one close watcher of the Journal. WINNER

The other four deputy managing editors are all vulnerable. News Corporation executives have already indicated his belief that the organization is top-heavy. Ethics editor Alix Freedman, for example, is charged with spurring the Journal’s efforts to maintain and extend the paper’s unparalleled reputation for accuracy and fairness. She's pictured here winning 2003's silver medal from the United Nations Correspondents Association. Could any resume be more designed to wind up News Corporation's gruff management? LOSERS

John Bussey, bureau chief in Washington, DC, must go if Robert Thomson is to make the Journal an instrument of political influence. Much of the DC coverage under Bussey and his predecessors has revolved around dry regulatory and legislative matters of significance to business. Expect more purely political news, and someone else in charge of the bureau to deliver it. Bussey's departure will be traumatic: he was a central figure in the efforts to save Danny Pearl, the Journal reporter whose throat was cut by Islamic radicals; they are both part of the Journal's modern myth. LOSER Correction: several credible people have emailed in to say I got this one pretty much completely wrong. Bussey's too recently in the DC bureau to bear responsibility for its dry output, and colleagues say he's shaken up the shop in the six months he's been in charge. Notable successes: Mark Penn's ouster, and the coverage of the HUD scandal. In fact, the Observer has even mentioned Bussey as a possible candidate for the Managing Editor role. Bussey might be tapped if Deogun is seen as too crucial to Money & Investing to take away from that section.

Marcus Brauchli gave his whole career to the Journal, and it must be devastating to be forced out just eleven months after winning the great prize, the role of managing editor. But the severance terms, rumored to be $3m, will salve the hurt. Brauchli is young and well-regarded enough to move on to a second career. (He'd be an excellent hire for anyone setting up an online business news operation.) And, by leaving the Journal, he won't have to impose the will of Murdoch on colleagues, and contend with their inevitable hostility. TOSS-UP

The larvae. Let the Columbia Journalism Review and other tenured hand-wringers bemoan the decimation about to be visited on the editorial ranks at the Wall Street Journal. In any war, a high casualty rate among officers means battlefield promotions for the ranks; some turnover is what the gerontocracies of the American newspaper industry most need. Which was proved by a question I've been asking—who are the young killer reporters at the Journal who'll most benefit from movement at the top?—and this depressing answer from an insider. "It's really hard to say. There are so many layers of editors, that it's almost impossible (and politically frowned upon) for young ones to shine in a noticeable way. Once the ranks are thinned, that will change." WINNERS

One Journal reporter told the Observer, "Marcus said that Murdoch admires a lot of things that are reminiscent of the way Financial Times runs the paper—short, no jump stories." This is not surprising, given that Murdoch's top loyalist at the Journal, Robert Thomson, is a former FT editor, and given Murdoch's stated preference for shorter, newsier stories.

Murdoch expanded on this vision during a January speech to bureau chiefs, according to the Journal:

He praised the paper's "quality, accuracy and depth," but he was also clear that he found the product sometimes a bit stodgy, academic. He said he wanted the paper to be "more attractive," and stories to be told in "as few words as possible." He said he wanted "facts first — news and analysis." He wanted more stories that begin and end on section fronts, complaining of gray "jump pages" — the inside pages on which longer articles are continued.

...The new owners were demanding newsier stories and more general news. Mr. Thomson, who took the floor after Mr. Brauchli, noted that some Journal stories appeared to have the "gestation period of a llama" (that is, nearly a year). He said "the New York Times and the Financial Times are the enemy, but the real enemy is time" — by which he meant the risk of wasting the reader's time. He said stories needed to be shorter and more alluring, and warned of "articles unread, jumps un-jumped, wisdom untapped."

Murdoch also wants his newspaper to sell better at retail, and there is talk of changing headline sizes. It is hoped that a sexier front page, along with more non-business stories, will help broaden appeal to advertisers and readers.

Murdoch is making a dangerous gamble in his hasty push to change the Journal. When he was angling to acquire the paper, the media mogul's apologists said he was too smart and had too much reputation on the line to ruin the WSJ by bending it to his ego. And yet hints have emerged from the Brauchli that Murdoch may be doing just that, and recklessly.

Murdoch had better hope there are plenty more readers like this one, highlighted in the Observer:

“I always used to read The Times first and The Journal second; now I find they are side by side at the breakfast table and I might even start with The Journal,” said Simon & Schuster editor in chief and former Time deputy managing editor Priscilla Painton, who cited two reasons for the shift.
“One is that The Journal has been masterful at decoding things that are currently in the news, like the subprime mortgage crisis and the hedge-fund troubles. The second is that The Journal’s political reporting has become more pointed and aggressive.” Ms. Painton told The Observer. “They seem a half-beat ahead in a way that they weren’t six months ago. Political news that I would normally find on A4 or A6, they now put it on the front page, which makes me think, ‘Gee, I guess I really have to read that.’”

[Observer, WSJ]

(Image via WSJ)

1. Publishing economics. The New York Post's new size, 12 inches high, down from 13½ inches, will make it the size of the Wall Street Journal, folded in two. I'm told this will allow both Murdoch-owned papers to be produced on the same presses. If Murdoch's rumored $580m bid for Long Island's Newsday goes through, News Corporation will achieve even greater savings. A person familiar with the deal said the deal, by combining printing and distribution of the New York Post with another title in the same metropolitan market, would wipe out the $50m in annual losses that the Australian media titan still bears on his beloved New York tabloid. This move would be straight out of News Corporation's UK playbook: there, the media conglomerate transformed the profitability of its UK titles in 1986 by breaking the print trade unions and moving production of The Times, The Sun and other London papers to a heavily fortified print works in Wapping.

2. Influence. Rupert Murdoch may be the personification of the press baron, but he's never had anything like the influence in the US that his array of newspapers and television networks brought in the UK. His solitary US newspaper title, the New York Post, has given Murdoch influence over New York City and State politics, but precious little juice in Washington, DC. Murdoch has never had the access to the White House, even under George Bush, that he had to Number 10 Downing Street during Tony Blair's tenure as UK prime minister. Fox News is powerful, of course, but the cable news network is too reflexively conservative to provide any real influence over the liberals who are likely to run national politics, and appoint regulators, over the next political cycle. By creating a national title in the Wall Street Journal, and taking control of about half the New York newspaper market, Murdoch or his successor should be able to withstand any political effort to break up his empire. Look at the UK: the Labour party, which long sought to curtail News Corporation's media power, has entirely given up; about a decade ago, Murdoch passed the critical threshold beyond which he became untouchable. By creating a similarly interlocking network of television and newspaper operations in the US, he can achieve a similar result on a grander scale—if competition authorities allow.

3. Mortality. Last month, the Australian media mogul turned 77 years old. His motives are hard to divine, but one has to presume that the nightmare would be the breakup of an empire he has spent a lifetime in building, the fate which awaits Time Warner and Sumner Redstone's holdings. News Corporation is the one media conglomerate which makes some sense: the profits are made on sports and entertainment broadcasting; tabloids and quality newspapers provide political protection. That's the formula in the UK, at least. In the US, the richest media market, Murdoch bought New York Post in 1976 and has gradually accumulated television stations over the three decades since, launched a fourth entertainment network and a surprisingly successful cable news channel, Fox News. But it is only now, as proprietors such as the Bancroft family and Sam Zell lose hope in the future of newspaper publishing, that Murdoch has been given the scope in the US to achieve the same concentration he has in the UK. And it is no wonder that Murdoch is in such a rush. These newly available newspapers need a dramatic intervention if they are to make the transition to the internet. Potentially hostile Democrats are about to take control of executive and legislative branches of government. And Murdoch, the last great media mogul, is mortal. The aging press magnate can deny the reality by wearing black polo-neck sweaters on the urging of his much younger wife, but he doesn't have much time to conclude his legacy.

(Citizen Kane's desolate mansion, in the Orson Welles movie based loosely on the life of William Randolph Hearst, the pre-eminent press baron of an earlier age.)

Brauchli was one of the few Journal managers who tacitly supported the takeover of the Journal by Murdoch's News Corporation, hoping the removal of the Bancroft family and a deep-pocketed backer would free a newspaper which had become hidebound. And Murdoch aides showed no signs of wanting him out; the Journal's new publisher, Robert Thomson, was a friend of Brauchli when both were foreign correspondents in the Far East.

But the Australian media mogul, and his lieutenants, have shown growing impatience with the Journal's resistance to their plans. Murdoch plans to turn the Journal into a full-fledged competitor to the New York Times. even if that means sacrificing the Journal's grip on business readers, or its prized reputation for elegant long-form writing. Brauchli is the first high-profile casualty of this clash.

sent 6:45am 8/1

Colleagues,

Today's news that a decisive proportion of Bancroft family trusts will vote in favor of News Corp.'s proposed acquisition of Dow Jones begins a process that will affect us all, but won't change what we do in the newsroom.

As journalists at Dow Jones and The Wall Street Journal, we have always focused on maintaining the high quality and integrity of our work, without regard to our ownership. We will continue to do so.

Our journalism defines the Journal. A change in ownership won't change our understanding of what's important; our ability to compellingly explain the world, politics and business; or our commitment to reporting that is accurate, honest and free of slant.

We know that a successful news organization's first obligation is to its readers. We must serve them, recognizing that their interests and needs change constantly, and that we will have to change with them.

It is too early to know how or even whether News Corp. ownership might alter priorities or structures at Dow Jones. Our current and likely future owners have given formal assurances, however, that the newsroom will retain its independence.

An owner who values editorial independence is essential to the Journal's success. Yet it is we who ultimately will ensure it, through the continued quality and integrity of our work.

Clarence Barron's heirs in the Bancroft family have been loyal and proud stewards of The Wall Street Journal for nearly 80 years. The Journal today, in print, online and in new media, in the U.S. and internationally, sets the highest journalistic standard thanks to their long support. I hope you share in my deep gratitude to them.

Regards,

Brauchli, New York

Bancrofts Warm to Murdoch's Offer [WaPo]
Editorial Reorganization At Wall Street Journal Looms [BW]
[Image: A.P.]