Looks like Murdock is getting the DOW and with it the WSJ. So the designed and unprofessional hit pieces by the Ny Times and other media outlets had little effect on stopping capitalism at it’s finest.

Now that the deal looks done, the hit pieces such as this one at MSNBC, written by an obscure David Sweet is the type of maniacal hysteria about Murdoch (alias FOX NEWS owner), in it’s slap-happy logic that begs a “WTF?” response.

“Standards are the lifeblood of WSJ and its related properties. Back in 1998, a source called to ask me to attend a World Series game with him at Yankee Stadium. When the request was shared with WSJ.com‚Äôs managing editor, it was denied ‚Äî even if I paid for the ticket ‚Äî because it was a ticket I was unlikely to be able to procure on my own, thus making me indebted to the source if I accepted it. Along the same lines, I remember being told in a meeting that not only were advertising representatives who sold for WSJ.com on a different floor; we weren’t even allowed to know their names. That way, ad reps and their clients could never influence a story.

It is hard to imagine that News Corp. — a juggernaut with more than $25 billion in revenue in 2006 — will keep such ideas in place, considered almost relics in a struggling business. Since Murdoch’s bid was announced, The Wall Street Journal has excelled at covering the story about itself. If bad news erupts about News Corp., will Murdoch dare let reporters investigate the problem and potentially scare off advertisers?

Since the pay at The Wall Street Journal is somewhat paltry compared to other giants such as The New York Times, for many the pride of saying you work for the most-respected newspaper in the U.S. is a currency that can not be measured. I remember headaches there, to be sure — labor negotiations were always contentious, with management routinely offering a 2 percent annual raise and the IAPE union posting angry missives on bulletin boards. Yet even as brickbats were tossed, Dow Jones chairman Peter Kann (a Pulitzer Prize winner) would be seen lunching with reporters or informally chatting with employees he had just met in elevators. And, whatever their pay gripes, when reporters opened the paper with their bylines gracing the pages of a journalistic jewel — illustrated by its unique dot drawings — it all seemed to be worth it at One World Financial Center.

But with News Corp. running the show, the Journal will lose prestige. When News Corp. buys a property, unfortunate changes are afoot. Just like The Wall Street Journal is a trophy in journalism, that‚Äôs what the Los Angeles Dodgers were in baseball when News Corp. grabbed them almost a decade ago. A franchise which had enjoyed a run of only three managers in more than 40 years went through two in the first two years of Murdoch‚Äôs reign. The pristine, classic uniforms were not good enough ‚Äî an alternate jersey was added.”

Like I said, “Huh?”. If you have trouble following Sweet’s reasoning you’ll quickly realize THERE ISN’T ANY. It’s just the same old Fox Derangement Syndrome we’ve heard for ten years.

The WSJ will survive and most likely be a hell of a lot better able to cover the news minus the need to report for numbers that has hampered it’s output of late.

Again, a good day for capitalism!