Time Warner 1, Rupert Murdoch 0

The New York Times’ Andrew Ross Sorkin and Michael J. De La Merced write about Rupert Murdoch’s acquisition attempt being blown off by Time Warner…

The media giant 21st Century Fox, the empire run by Rupert Murdoch, made an $80 billion takeover bid in recent weeks for Time Warner Inc. but was rebuffed, people briefed on the matter said on Wednesday.

The bold approach could put Time Warner in play and might again ignite a reshaping of the media industry, prompting a new spate of mega-mergers among the nation’s largest entertainment companies.

And there’s this…

As part of the proposal to buy Time Warner, people briefed on the proposal said, 21st Century Fox indicated that it would sell CNN to head off potential antitrust concerns since Fox News competes directly with CNN. Putting CNN on the auction block would likely stir up a bidding war for the news channel; both CBS and ABC, a unit of the Walt Disney Company, have long been viewed as interested suitors.

Well…that would be interesting…not the least because of what it would mean for Jeff Zucker’s future at CNN Worldwide…but I think it would take a lot more than spinning off CNN to get a Fox acquisition of Time Warner to get past Anti Trust regulators…

49 Responses to “Time Warner 1, Rupert Murdoch 0”

  1. paminwi Says:

    It is rare that the first offer to buy is accepted. This is the opening offer to much negotiation. Your headline implies the game is over. This is just the first period, quarter, inning, whatever.

    Rupert Murdoch has not lost yet, which is what ARS said on CNBC this morning.

    Your headline writing implies your bias, as much headline writing does in so mamy forums – newspaper, magazine, blogging, etc.

  2. Murdoch 1, Spud nothing.

    Dislike for All things FOX related gives a dumb headline slant on this story.

    As the New Your Times points out:
    “Mr. Murdoch has built a global media juggernaut over nearly five decades spanning studios, television channels and newspapers, in part, by pursuing bold deals that were often rebuffed at first by the targets of his overtures, only to later acquiesce.”

  3. Many a “media expert” were pooh-poohing this was seriously even in the works. Shows there are a lot of know-it-all know-nothings without good sources.

  4. joeremi Says:

    Your headline implies the game is over. This is just the first period, quarter, inning, whatever.

    The headline implies your second sentence, which is diametrically opposed to your first one.

    Dislike for All things FOX related gives a dumb headline slant on this story.

    You forgot to call Spud a “FOX hater” while throwing a fit because he dared to accurately represent the story he posted about a cable news channel on a cable news blog.

  5. And I’m proud to fight for Truth, Justice, and The American Way, about cable news on a cable news blog.

  6. The truth is Spud used a sports score-type headline to accurately reflect the first round in Rupert’s interest in Time Warner. Which Pam misrepresented as a “final”, and you misrepresented as “slanted” because of an erroneous “dislike of all things FOX related”.

    Everyone knows that FOX trolled comment sections with this disinformation/intimidation technique years ago, and some folks have learned it well, and continue to use it every time a blog dares post anything but fanboy fawning over FOX News.

    How ’bout we actually read and comment on Sorkin’s article? Just for different.

  7. When Rupert makes the deal, I’ll be sure to wave the headline, har.

  8. The headline “implies” nothing, aside from the state of the issue at the moment. The willingness to spin everything into “bias” is telling.

  9. ^ See, that’s the problem. You’re treating a standard business story as a winner/loser proposition in which you have a stake in Murdoch winning. Which is a bias you apply, while insisting that Blog Owner has a bias the other way which isn’t there. The story is objectively that Time Warner blew off Murdoch’s first advance, and that is how it was accurately presented. It completely mystifies me that people would find some bizarre “FOX hater” angle out of something like this.

  10. “Could Murdock come back with an even higher bid?” I love Wolf, but he has such a special way of asking the stupidly obvious question.

  11. The headline states ….1 …..0. It does nothing to state there is more to come. If it did it would have said something to the effect of “after 1st period” “after 1st inning”, etc.

    Spud has had wayyyyyyy longer headlines than this one and did nothing except post the score. When you post a score, if it is not the “end” you identify it is not the “end”.

  12. Oh come on. A. 1-0 is a very low score, which usually denotes “early in the game”. B. The article clearly indicates this is a first move, and Spud as much as says so by ending his post with a … about what happens next with Anti Trust. You’re looking for a “FOX bias” which isn’t there.

  13. BS. Do you watch soccer or baseball?

  14. savefarris Says:

    You’re treating a standard business story as a winner/loser proposition in which you have a stake in Murdoch winning.

    As do all the usual suspects: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/16/1314323/-Is-Rupert-Murdoch-about-to-take-CNN-completely-off-the-deep-end

    Let me state for the record that I could absolutely give a fig about whether Murdoch buys TW. Let me also state that spud’s treatment of said story does not appear to display any bias whatsoever.

  15. You nailed it Pam.

  16. savefarris Says:

    1-0 is a very low score

    Well, except for soccer where that’d be a barnburner. #sogladitsover

  17. Wall Street Journal 1, Rupert Murdoch 0.

  18. Joe Fraser 1, Mohammad Ali 0.

  19. Kickball isn’t a real sport.

  20. Just counting the days when Murdock acquisition of HBO will steer the plot of the NEWSROOM with a conservative makeover of the channel to improve ratings.

  21. Y’all realize cheerleading for some cranky old Australian Tabloid King is bonkers, right? I mean, I get that you like your silly little fake-balanced conservative channel, but transferring this cult-like level of adoration to Rupert Murdoch is just weird.

  22. Oh, I suppose I could cheerlead the rich family of Qatar, but that channel already has an excellent yell-leader. Can’t say I’d insult him by calling it weird though.

  23. joeremi Says:

    AJAM? Who’s cheerleading the Qatar family? We had one commenter here who likes the channel, and I don’t think he’s posted in months. I’m not sure how you got “cheerleading the Qatar family” out of that, or why you would bother to insult him at all. The young man has less than NOTHING to do with this topic.

  24. icemannyr Says:

    Yeah AJAM is such a terrible news channel they should be more like FNC and use their AM show for their hosts to talk about how awful the Obama admin and liberals are as they make snarky comments and obsess over how the MSM is covering stories.

    Yes you can question the owners of AJAM however they do more straight news than FNC ever does.

  25. harry1420 Says:

    No matter what money murdoch offered I wouldnt even listen to him. YAY for TW for not taking it. murdoch owns enough already. But do sell CNN to abc or CBS. Zucker is killing it. And I can nothing but laugh at the folks that think spud is hating on murdoch. I feel sorry for folks that always whine bias bias bias..typical repubs!!!!

  26. See above for some fine wholesome cheering. Nothing wrong with that. Not weird, not silly, just expressing your preference in cable news channel on a cable news blog. Go for it, boys. This pejorative -described-Repub. is touched by the nice man feeling sorry for me, but I’m just thrilled at the fine company that’s come to converse with me.

  27. And don’t get me wrong about Spud. He has as fine a blog as I could want, and keeping it going after returning to work is a pretty cool feat.

  28. savefarris Says:

    Y’all realize cheerleading for some cranky old Australian Tabloid King is bonkers, right?

    Coming up next on MSNBC, how the Top 1% are getting richer at the expense of the middle class and what you can do to fight back. Then, we’ll be taking a look at how American corporations are outsourcing your job and hiding profits overseas

    But first, these words from Comcast and Universal Studios Singapore!

  29. icemannyr Says:

    People here are not regularly defending MSNBC calming they don’t have a liberal bias.

    FNC is a conservative news channel and MSNBC is a liberal news channel.

    Talking about AJAM’s programming vs FNC’s is not cheerleading.

  30. Um, saying how great it is, what would you call that? Maybe… I don’t know… cheerleading? Me, I think it is a slow developing plan to introduce Arab POV into the American news stream. Qatar has its bias, you know.

  31. Dylan Byers:
    “As part of the deal, CNN would’ve been sold off to avoid antitrust issues with Fox News, which is seen as a direct competitor. The Times reports that both CBS and ABC have long been seen as interested suitors for the cable network.

    Murdoch, the Times reports, is determined to buy the company and won’t be walking away from a possible deal anytime soon. “

  32. joeremi Says:

    Oh for Pete’s sake. “Cheerleading” was a reference to Rupert Murdoch, which was then defended by an invented instance of cheerleading for the government of Qatar which has never happened on this blog.

  33. Murdoch could see quite the bidding war selling CNN to ABC and CBS. Or Maybe Al Gore. He could pay cash.

  34. joeremi Says:

    Why would CBS or ABC need to get the property from Murdoch? If CNN is for sale, can’t they just buy direct without any antitrust worries?

  35. Yes, I’m just saying Rupert would enjoy the ruckus she created.

    And somebody please cheer for MSNBC. Poor Alex Wagner:
    http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/07/16/now-with-alex-wagner-hits-low-in-adults-25-54/283554/

  36. Final Score
    Rupert 100,000,000 Time Warner 1

    Nothing can stop him: http://adage.com/article/media/rupert-murdoch-unstoppable-immortal/294144/?dtoc

    I see Jon Voigt staring in NEWSROOM – FAIR & BALANCED.

  37. Oh, I suppose I could cheerlead the rich family of Qatar, but that channel already has an excellent yell-leader. Can’t say I’d insult him by calling it weird though.

    Get off my lawn.

  38. After you get past the multitude of comment discussing Spud’s headline, most of the discussion seems to assume acquiring CNN, so he can either sell it or turn it into FNC light; is the main reason Murdock wants to buy TW.

    I would think CNN is an afterthought in the purchase and that HBO, Warner Brothers, and the many other media properties are the real prize.

    Even if the sale goes through, and I don’t think it’s a given, CNN will probably continue on the same course, under the same management, they are now; (becoming a reality/documentary channel) as that will make TW and Murdock, if he owns TW, the most money.

  39. motownman Says:

    I have no doubt Murdoch will eventually make the deal. Reportedly, he only wants HBO and Turner Sports, which makes perfect sense. If he can get Turner’s properties (NBA, NCAA Tournament, MLB playoffs, NASCAR), he’ll give ESPN a real run for its money.

  40. @mowtownman Turner Sports no longer has NASCAR. And FOX Sports 1 already has NASCAR and MLB Postseason. In fact, every playoff game, minus the World Series, will be on FOX Sports 1 and TBS this year.

  41. savefarris Says:

    I would think CNN is an afterthought in the purchase and that HBO, Warner Brothers, and the many other media properties are the real prize.

    Bingo.

    Jamie Lannister, Batman, John McClane and Jack Bauer under the same roof. ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!?!?

  42. savefarris Says:

    In fact, every playoff game, minus the World Series, will be on FOX Sports 1 and TBS this year.

    And that might be worth something, were it not for the continued existence of Joe Buck.

    MLB, NFL, and NCAAF all figured out that putting your best announcers during your most-watched telecast leads to increased interest in the league. Under Bud Selig’s tutelage, we seem to be hell-bent on proving the opposite.

  43. Your headline writing implies your bias, as much headline writing does in so mamy forums – newspaper, magazine, blogging, etc.

    Nope. Your bias is causing you to read something that’s not there. All that headline is is the current score. The score may yet change.

  44. joeremi Says:

    Of course I came back here to say exactly the same thing, and got blown off numerous times for being absolutely right from the beginning. Wait, what’s this? Another post about Murdoch trying to buy Time Warner? Shocked face!

  45. Headlines are often subliminal choices.

  46. Drudge headline:

    DEAL OF A LIFETIME. MURDOCH GOES BIG FOR TIME WARNER. HOT PURSUIT.

    Leaves one with a different emphasis for the ultimate ending, doesn’t it?

  47. And Time Warner shareholders conclude a 1-0 score after a first play has no significance:
    “Still, Time Warner shareholders on Wednesday appeared to think a deal, whether with 21st Century Fox or another buyer, is inevitable. Shares of the company jumped 17 percent on Wednesday, to $83.13.” NYT this morning.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: