DealBreaker’s probing coverage into the search for a name of News Corp and NBC Universal’s online video JV is over. The two companies finally put that billion dollar brain-trust to work and came up with a name that is bound to draw viewers and admirers alike.

The winner – Hulu. Hulu. We’re serious. Hulu – the result of a five month search. Hulu – when you get punched while trying to say the word “Hula.” Hulu – the lieutenant commander of the Enterprise when everyone has a cold. Hulu – how George Bush mispronounces the first two syllables of the folksy word “hullabaloo.”

It took the ad wizards five months to “capture” the spontaneity and child-friendly assonance of hip techie names like Lala, Tinkie-Winkie, Joost, Wii, WiiWii, Yahoo, Belo, PooPoo, Lyondell Chemical Company and Fuchs Petrolub AG*.

Conclusion - Either the marketing team is borderline retarded or it took Rupert this long to shout “Hulu” out his window during a storm in which he thought the Nothing was consuming the remnants of Fantastica and the Ivory Tower in which the childlike empress resides (which has been our theory all along).

The new site is going to begin invitation-only beta testing in just two short months. It is expected to launch in 2130.

News Corp and NBC Universal name video site Hulu [Yahoo Finance]

*There is a company that makes lubricants called Fuchs (we had to reprint it to believe it)

Rupert Murdoch almost seems to be living up to the worst fears many had when made his bid for Dow Jones. Almost.

He’s been “flexing his muscles” by calling Wall Street Journal reporters, according to the Los Angeles Times. At least three reporters have had calls for him.

So what has prompted Murdoch’s calls? Does he want more favorable coverage of China? More “fair and balanced” Fox New Channel style reporting? A five-star review for the Simpson’s Movie?

Not quite. It seems that what Murdoch has been doing is attempting to keep the reporting staff of the Journal intact. The three reporters he’s called were considering leaving the Journal and Murdoch has asked them to stay.

“Murdoch, who has been vacationing in the Mediterranean in recent days, made the calls to the reporters from his yacht, the Rosehearty, named for the Murdoch family's ancestral home in Scotland,” the LA Times reports.

Scandal upon scandal! He’s got a yacht! It’s in the Mediterranean. Where are the reporters’ yachts? Where is the Mediterranean for the reporters?

We’re not sure why this is anything but a positive story for the Journal, its editors, its reports and its readers. As we maintained from the beginning, Murdoch did not come to destroy the Journal but to own it. And now he’s personally reaching out to reporters in an attempt to keep it intact.

But there’s already a movement to make something scandalous of these moves. “Some journalists in the newsroom took the gesture as a sign of Murdoch's commitment to keep the staff's quality high. Others said it showed that Murdoch would take a hands-on approach in newsroom affairs despite a special committee established to keep him from interfering in coverage,” the LA Times reports.

Heaven forbid! The owner is trying to keep his top reporters! It’s a clear violation of the editorial integrity of the newspaper, which apparently now means letting the newsroom fall report.

So who are the put-upon reporters who got the call? The LA Times named them as Tara Parker-Pope, Kate Kelly and Henny Sender. The latter two are DealBreaker favorites, who have broken important stories in recent months. (Tara Parker-Pope is a Health writer.) We’re sure they’re in high demand, and it just seems demented to expect that Murdoch wouldn’t fight to keep them on board.

Our question: is this what they were talking about when they said Murdoch would "interfere" with the Journal? If so, bring it on!

Murdoch's presence felt at Journal [Los Angeles Times]

Meaning that more people are reading the Journal for less time, at least online, following the Murdoch print media philosophy of more eyes, less ink (we would have also accepted: "words are offensive," or "who likes to read anyway?"). Maybe it's that people turned away from market news in July the same way you can't stare at a train wreck or maybe it was the Journal's new emphasis on less-reader-intensive celebrity nipple slips, but monthly numbers suggest a definite Pre-Post-erization (take a second to wrap your head around that term) of the now slightly less sacrosanct WSJ.

Editor & Publisher released its monthly traffic numbers for online newspapers for the month of July. Compared to May, when the glacial progression of the Murdoch buyout process was really kicking off, the Wall Street Journal in July was being read by more people for 2 fewer minutes on average per user per month. It was being read by 3% more people for 17% less time. Ok Rupert, you win.

The order of the top five online publications ranked by traffic remained static from May to July, with the Journal rounding out that club at number five. The online papers read more than the Journal are the NYTimes, USATODAY, Washington Post and LA Times (in that order). The top three all experienced greater traffic spikes than the WSJ from May to July and, wait a second...all experienced declines in the average time spent on the site per user which means that (you heard it on DB first) Rupert Murdoch is going to buy the NYTimes, USATODAY and Washington Post. The world's online print media is powerless to resist its reduction to large badly-punned inappropriate titles. Surprisingly, more people trafficked online newpapers in July than May, which confirms that suspicion that the people on vacation (your bosses) weren't reading online papers anyway (you knew your MD was illiterate, strangely out of the cultural/current event loop) and that there is an inverse correlation between how busy people are at work and online media traffic.

For some reason one of most significant swings from May to July was the average time spent per person reading the NY Post, which increased over 50%, from a paltry 6 minutes per month to over 9 minutes. Alright, now we're confused, what are you up to Rupert?

EXCLUSIVE: Top 30 Web Sites for July Traffic [Editor & Publisher]
UPDATE: Here's Ranking of 30 Most Popular Newspaper Sites for May [Editor & Publisher]

Wall Street Journal reporters are in mourning today after the Bancroft family sold their souls to the News Corp Murdochracy for $5bn. “It’s sad. We held a wake. We stood around a pile of Journals and drank whiskey,” one writer said.

The Journal’s Managing editor, Marcus Brauchli (whose job, it should be noted, was secured during those interminable negotiations for “editorial independence”) tried to cheer up the troops this morning, sending around an internal memo with such heartrending reassurances as, “Our journalism defines the Journal,” and “It is too early to know how or even whether News Corp. ownership might alter priorities or structures at Dow Jones.”

For the time being, he’s probably right.

It’s finally pretty much almost over. Rupert Murdoch has secured enough Bancroft family shareholder votes to move forward with his $60-a-share, $5bn bid, one future News Corp holding reports.

One day after a Murdoch spokesperson said the deal was “highly unlikely,” the Denver branch of the Bancroft family, previously holding out for a higher offer, capitulated, giving News Corp at least 32% of the family vote. Nonetheless, one Bancroft family spokesperson said today, “Any suggestion that the process has been completed and/or that a particular level of support has been established is at this point premature.”

Both companies have board meetings this evening to formulate the take-over procedure. Dow Jones is trading up 7.04% to $57.50 today.

News Corp. Appears to Have Enough Votes to Clinch Deal [Wall Street Journal]
Murdoch Seen to Win Control of Dow Jones [NY Times]

This is a list of people who we respectfully submit are liars: CNBC’s David Faber, Thestreet.com’s Nat Worden, and Reuters. We believe these entities to be capital 'L' small 'i' small 'a' small 'r's because among them they share the distinction of having reported or re-reported this morning that there will be an official announcement of News Corp.’s Dow Jones victory tonight. Nothing personal, it’s just that we no longer believe the words coming out of the mouths of people who say anything—outright, implying, leading, lip synching—that even hints that this whole thing will be conclusively finished before hell freezes over. We WANT to believe them, we just can't. Know anyone you’d like to add to our list? Send his/her name to tips at dealbreaker dot com.

In other news, MySpace co-founder Brad Greenspan sent an open letter to Dow Jones shareholders detailing a new proposal (he’s done this before, several times) in which he would invest $600 million in cash and stock in three joint ventures with DJ. Greenspan says he’s received “interest” from five “credible” investor groups, though he would not disclose their names, and their profiles are set to private. Brad informed shareholders that he and his investors “can meet this week” in order to “firm investment commitments,” but starting next week things are going to be really tight for him, so if Dow Jones could really get back to him A-sap to nail something down that would be solid, just name the time and place, but seriously, get back to him soon, otherwise, who knows, he could be busy.

Dow Jones to Agree To Takeover by News Corp. [CNBC]
Dow Jones Deal Gets Closer [WSJ]
Dow Jones Soars As Deal Appears Near [thestreet.com]
News Corp., Dow Jones deal expected Tues [Reuters]
MySpace Co-Founder Makes Another Dow Jones Proposal [Bloomberg]

Rupert Murdoch’s bid for Dow Jones, once a sure thing, then “too close to call,” is now “highly unlikely” unless the Bancroft family increases its support of the deal by 5 p.m. today, the Wall Street Journal reports.

At the moment, 28% of Dow Jones’ voting power supports the deal, although it is unclear what percentage of Bancrofts voted affirmatively; 30% of the family needs to support Murdoch for his $5bn bid to go through. If this is not met, “News Corp likely wouldn’t take the deal to a full Dow Jones shareholder vote.”

After all the mud-slinging and Rupe’s cryptic commentary, this summer’s saga could come to a close tonight, in which case I will have no idea what to write about.

News Corp. Says It's 'Highly Unlikely' To Buy Dow Jones at Current Count [Wall Street Journal]

Two days after the contentious Bancroft family powwow in Boston, the Denver branch of the family announced it will vote against News Corp’s $5bn bid for Dow Jones, insisting that Rupert Murdoch raise his offer by $120-240mn. The Denver trust controls 9.1% of the Bancroft’s voting power, but has been watched closely by News Corp and Dow Jones management. “The outcome has been seen as too close to call, although the Denver trust's decision increases doubts about the deal's prospects,” The Wall Street Journal reports.

The Colorado Bancrofts want a 10-20% premium on compensation for super-voting B class shareholders (The Bancrofts) although News Corp spokespeople insist that the Murdoch will not raise the bid and that a two tiered compensation is not tenable.

Key Bancroft Family Trust to Vote Against News Corp. Bid for Dow Jones [Wall Street Journal]

Geoffrey Raymond is at it again! Now he's gone off and painted good 'ol Rupert Murdoch in his classic style, but this time he's asking for a little help from the viewer. Raymond is displaying his masterpiece outside of One World Financial Center so that Wall Street Journal employees and tourists alike can add their feelings about Rupes directly to the piece. WSJ employees in red marker, everyone else in black, with Raymond acting as a moderator. Barring rain, Raymond will be there until the end of the week and then the painting is going to the highest bidder. By highest bidder we mean any bidder, as the eBay auction starting at $3,500 has no bids to date with just three days left.

To one man walking by who refused to stop but still seemed interested, Raymond said defensively, "It's not a picture of Rupert Murdoch, it's a picture of a moment in the history of the Wall Street Journal." Apparently this painting took only about two weeks to complete with Raymond rushing to finish before any official announcement about the fate of Dow Jones is announced. His painting of the $Honey is still a work in progress, he told DealBreaker — Raymond hasn't yet figured out the finishing touch.

After the jump we bring you some pictures of the painting's set up on Liberty Street.

The Annotated Murdoch [eBay]

A Bancroft wrangle over NewsCorp’s bid for Dow Jones ended in stalemate yesterday after emotional harangues from opposing factions, the Wall Street Journal reports. The meeting, in the Boston Hilton was so grueling that, “after four hours of discussion, family members were so hungry that they made do with a tray of stale danishes.”

Interviews with more than a dozen family members, outside advisers, lawyers and others involved in the process suggest that the outcome remains too close to call. What has seemed to many analysts like a logical move -- accepting a $60-a-share bid for a company whose shares previously had been trading in the mid-30s -- is still in question amid the deep emotions the bid has stirred. Participants said more doubts about a News Corp. deal were apparent at the end of the six-hour session than at the beginning.

On several occasions Bancrofts “held back tears” as they extolled the merits of an independent editorial board. One prominent Rupe resister, Jane Cox MacElree, seemed even to make the distressing “Daniel-Pearle-would-have-wanted-it-this-way” argument. Another opposing force claimed that the company was worth more than Murdoch’s offer of $60-a-share and that the family shouldn’t accept anything below $66.

Although only 30% of the Bancrofts’ voting power must endorse Murdoch’s proposal for it to go through, investors are becoming increasingly unsure that the deal is a sure thing, Dow stock is currently trading at $54.01, down from as high as $61.20 in June.

It looks like the interminable saga will continue for now, maybe even into August.

Relative Uncertainty [Wall Street Journal]

Off to a slow start here this morning because of the rain in New York City. We had to wait for our interwebs to dry out. (Just like Alphaville, the deal blog at Financial Times, which has reportedly had trouble due to the flooding in England. Unless that's just Brit-speak for, uhm, one too many pints on Sunday night.)

But it’s back to business now. And by “business” we mean, of course, the saga of Rupert Murdoch, the Bancroft family and the Wall Street Journal.

One of the things we’re sure has been absolutely frustrating to anyone who has been following the endless tape of this story has been the complete lack of information about which members of the Bancroft family and its representatives control exactly which shares and which percentage of the votes. It was only at the middle of last week that we learned that Michael Elefante, the partner at the Boston law firm Hemenway & Barnes who is a trustee for two of the largest trusts holding shares for the family, can deliver a little less than half of the family's 64% voting stake. Let’s call that 30% of the total voting power of the company.

Today the New York Times reports that the leader of the opposition to Murdoch within the family, Christopher Bancroft, controls around 14.5 percent of the total Dow Jones shareholder vote as of January. And his cousin, Jane Cox MacElree, is running around with 14.8 percent. (Apparently no-one else has more than 4.3%.) But you have to read a bit between the lines of the Times—too often the stuff we really want to know apparently isn’t “fit to print”—to understand why they spend so much time talking about Chris and so little talking about Jane. It’s because Jane isn’t really involved with the Dow Jones stuff, and leaves the decision making to Chris. So you can count her shares as shares controlled by Chris. That gives him around a little more than 30% of the voting power of the company, or about what Elephante controls. To that you can add the “Never Murdoch” shares controlled by the Ottaway family to come up with a 36% opposed number.

In short, going into today’s big Boston Bancroft powwow, Murdoch is a bit behind. Probably at least 36% of the voting power of Dow Jones opposes him. He’s got 30% on his side. But Murdoch has a secret weapon: the 30% or so of the voting power vesting in shares that were once held by the general public and are now held by stock arbitrageurs, the Bancrofts, the Ottaways and a few people who aren’t paying any attention. Most of those shares will vote his way. To play it safe, let’s put that pro-Murdoch number at around 25%.

Which gives Murdoch right around 55% of the voting power of the company. Since he only needs 51%, that means he wins. But it’s close. And since we’ve been guestimating at a few of the crucial numbers, it’s possible that it’s even closer than this. If the numbers are shifted a couple points in the only direction—say, Elefante only has around 28% of the vote in his pocket and only 22% votes held by common shareholders go for Murdoch, he’s down to a losing 50%.

Which leaves us at the exciting possibility that we may be entering the rare situation where a very few amount of votes—perhaps those held by a small shareholder who doesn’t even remember he has the shares in his account (or his attic)—could swing the voting. In short, the Bancrofts may be meeting in Boston in 2008. But the voting may well be in Florida, 2000 territory.

A Family Meets Today to Hear the Complexities of a Bid for Dow Jones [New York Times]
Bancrofts To Consider Murdoch Bid, ‘Close Vote' Predicted [New York Sun]
Know Your Bancrofts [New York Magazine]

Renaming an institution like the Dow Jones Industrial Average and getting people to use its new name is a pretty difficult task. It’s doubtful that either residents or tourists living near or travelling to Auschwitz-Birkenau will take the extra effort to say "Former Nazi German Concentration Camp Auschwitz-Birkenau,” though Poland is hoping we’re wrong (it’s happened). Still, it seems like there’s a chance that Rupert Murdoch suddenly get all egomaniacal upon acquiring Dow Jones, and want to brand his territory.

Thestreet.com took a shot today and came up with: “The Fox Dow Jones Industrial Average,” “The Fox Business Network Average” and “The Rupert and Wendi Murdoch Industrial Average,” submissions that don’t want to call “awful” but maybe “not good.” Definitely “not funny.” Unfortunately, it’s easier to call out other people’s shoddy ideas than come up with your own, which is our way of saying, “we’ve got nothing.” (Carney nixed Asians Keep You Young Industrial Average). So, let us know if you’ve got anything.

Ready for the Fox Dow Jones Industrials? [thestreet.com]

When Wall Street Journal’s Sarah Ellison broke the story late Monday that Dow Jones chief executive Richard Zannino and News Corp’s Rupert Murdoch reached a tentative agreement over lunch to bring the News Corp’s bid for Dow Jones before the board of directors, many were surprised that the offer price hadn’t budged from original $5 billion, or $60 a share.

They shouldn’t have been. Throughout the months since Murdoch first approached Dow Jones representatives with his offer, advisers to Murdoch have coached him not to increase his bid. Early on some thought he might increase the price in an attempt to overcome resistance from some members of the Bancroft family. But Murdoch’s investment bankers advised him that it was foolish to bid against himself, raising his offer at a time when the Bancroft’s had not yet indicated that they were willing to sell at any price.

Some of Murdoch’s advisers believed that a higher, second bid might have actually invited a competing bid for the company if it was seen as Murdoch’s best offer. By sticking to the original bid, Murdoch may have discouraged other potential bidders who were not sure they could outbid the deep pockets of a cash rich News Corp.
Even after negotiations with the Bancroft family began, some observers thought Murdoch might increase his bid. “While the initial $60-a-share offer represents a hefty premium over where Do Jones’s stock was trading before Mr. Murdoch’s offer became public, Dow Jones hopes the Bancroft family’s ambivalence about the Murdoch deal could help the company extract a few more dollars per share,” Ellison writes in her story today.

The thinking in the News Corp camp, however, runs completely in the other direction. The Bancroft family had already extracted value from News Corp in the form of promises of editorial independence, and had dragged out the negotiating process—taking up time and energy from Murdoch and his advisers. These discussions and concessions have been seen as part of the price News Corp was paying to buy Dow Jones. In effect, they were counted as increasing the cost of the deal.

What’s more, the Bancroft family’s continued ambivalence despite the negotiations and concessions has frustrated Murdoch and his advisers. The view within the Murdoch camp has been that as long as the Bancroft family continued to resist selling the Dow Jones for non-financial reasons, there was little point in increasing the financial incentives.

“The Bancrofts kept saying that this wasn’t about the money,” one person familiar with the News Corp strategy said. “Murdoch decided to take them at their word.”

While initially trading higher this morning, the stock dropped today to its lowest level since the Bancroft family first agreed to meet with Murdoch at the end of May. This may indicate traders now believe that Murdoch will not offer a higher price than his original bid.

Dow Jones, News Corp. Set Deal [Wall Street Journal]

What did Rupert Murdoch say when the check came at the end of his lunch with Dow Jones chief executive Richard Zannino?

"I'm buying."

Thank you, thank you. We'll be here all day.

Outspoken publisher Judith Regan has the dirt on Rupert Murdoch and “more than a few Fox executives,” the New York Daily News is reporting. Regan, who was fired last year after trying to publish OJ Simpson’s “If I Did It,” claims to have secret tapes of “juicy” and “explosive” phone calls from her time at NewsCorps’ HarperCollins. Regan is currently suing NewsCorp for wrongful termination and defamation.

After so many broken promises, when we hear Rupert Murdoch news item, juicy and explosive, we expect Rupert Murdoch news item, desiccated and banal, but maybe this will be the one.

In other “news,” Rupe is frustrated with those mercurial Bancrofts because, “they keep changing their mind.”

Regan may out-Fox Rupe [NYDailyNews via Gawker]
Sun Valley: What Murdoch Said, and What He Didn’t [Dealbook]

Although a NewsCorp deal will likely may be announced this week, Ron Burkle and Brad Greenspan, two renegade investors no one takes seriously had a meeting with the Dow Jones board yesterday. The pair, who did not present an offer and have few, if any commitments from other investors, want to “buy out only those members of the Bancroft family who wanted to sell,” the New York Times Reports.

The primary Dow Jones union recruited Burkle, who owns the private equity firm Yucaipa Companies, to partner with Greenspan and block Rupert Murdoch’s bid in what seems to be another effort to protect the journal’s editorial independence. The New York Observer details the lunch between Greenspan and a union leader in which the plans were discussed.

“I think it’s clear the family does not want to sell to Rupert Murdoch. If they did, they would have taken the $5 billion a long time ago. We would much rather have the family continue its stewardship of this company. I believe that working with Burkle and a number of other people, we have alternatives, if the family wants an alternative," union leader Steve Yount tells the Observer.

But does this make any sense? Does the addition of Burkle make Greenspan’s half-baked bid less crazy or twice as crazy? We would side with the latter, but don’t take our word for it. Take the word of the former chief executive of Dow Jones, Peter Kann, who the Journal describes as "outspoken in his support for the independence of Dow Jones"

“If the family is going to sell I see no point in pursuing industrial conglomerates, Internet entrepreneurs, supermarket magnates and real-estate developers. None know anything at all about journalism. As to Mr. Murdoch, at least he loves newspapers, presumably would invest in the WSJ and Dow Jones, and would seem to have little incentive to tarnish a trophy he has coveted for so long,” Kahn says in today's Journal story on the item.

Also, see Gary Weiss for what happens when amateur investors buy newspapers. A serious question for Dow Jones employees who may be invited to join some sort of leveraged Employee Stock Ownership Plan rival buyout bid is whether they want to spend part of their paycheck buying the company from the bondholders for the next decade or so. Because that's the best-case proposal from a Burkle-Greenspan partnership.

Shares of Dow Jones traded slightly lower today, bringing our technical arbitrage measurement down to 90%. But we're exercising our own editorial independence here and refusing to move the meter. It remains unchanged at 95%.

Burkle and Greenspan Gather Journal Kiddies for ESOP Fable [New York Observer]
Dow Jones Hears Alternative Proposals [Wall Street Journal]
2 Investors Discuss Partial Purchase With Dow Jones Board [New York Times]

The co-author of the fabricated tale from Friday about News Corp. having bought Dow Jones is sticking by his story. Andrew Neil, who wrote the article with James Forsyt, and is “credible” because (in light of?) he edited Murdoch’s Sunday Times of London for 11 years, took issue with the fact that Dow Jones representatives called him out for lying. His take? “[The protestations] are rubbish...They’re all swearing at us because, I assume, they’re all out in the Hamptons.” Mr. Neil, the Times reports, was drinking at the Ritz at the time.

Earlier: Rupert Murdoch Does Not Own Dow Jones...Yet!
Interminable Dow Jones Saga Possibly Over?

Expert on Murdoch Insisted the Dow Jones Deal Was Done [NYT]

Still bitter over the Post’s coup that was the Keith Richard’s cover/headline, “I Snorted My Father,” British tabloids took the genius strategy of inventing the news this morning when it claimed that News Corp had bought Dow Jones. No stranger to taking liberties with facts (News Corp, as you well know, owns the paragon of journalistic integrity, thePost), the injured party issued a statement that “the story isn’t true.” Dow Jones shares gained 55 cents to $58.40 at 9:31 a.m. in NYSE composite trading and Lindsay Lohan smoked pot in the Port Authority with two trannies last night—pics inside!

Dow Jones, Bancrofts Are Still in Talks With Murdoch [Bloomberg]

It’s only been reported in one British paper (so let’s remain skeptical, because those publications have a tendency to lie) but according to The Business Rupert Murdoch has “succeed with his $5 billion bid for Dow Jones.”

Allegedly, negotiations have been completed (less, “we want more money,” more “editorial independence, don’t make this the Post, you can only hire and fire the top editors and publishers, etc”), the board says the deal will be accepted by the Bancrofts over the next few days and a formal announcement is expected net week. News Corp will apparently pay $60/share, a 67% premium on the $36/share price in April.

Like we said, no one else has this story, though one of the writers, Andrew Neil, is a former “Murdoch lieutenant,” so perhaps that adds a miniscule amount of plausibility. According to CNBC’s David Faber no deal has been reached, despite news to the contrary from “some rag in a far away place.” Anyone else care to comment?

EXCLUSIVE: Rupert Murdoch buys Dow Jones, owners of the Wall Street Journal [The Business via Gawker]
'Murdoch buys Dow Jones' report [The Guardian]

When it came out that Rupert Murdoch and Dow Jones had agreed on a way to preserve the Wall Street Journal’s editorial independence, we naively assumed that a compromise had been reached. In fact, the “agreement” consists of exactly what Murdoch wanted and more, the New York Times is reporting.

The details have not been finalized, but as it stands, News Corp will have the exclusive power to hire and fire top editors at the Journal. In addition, and this is the shocking part, the board of editors the Bancrofts want established as shield against Murdoch’s influence will not have veto power over any News Corp editorial appointees. Even the similar board at the Times of London, which the Bancrofts have cited as an example of too much News Corp influence, has this veto.

The Bancrofts still haven’t seen the agreement. Based on their past behavior, they probably won't be happy about it.

In related news, some Wall Street Journal staffers are apparently taking half the day off work today to protest Murdoch’s bid. According to a Newspaper Guild statement from this morning,

“The Wall Street Journal's long tradition of independence, which has been the hallmark of our news coverage for decades, is threatened today. We, along with hundreds of other Dow Jones employees represented by the Independent Association of Publishers' Employees, want to demonstrate our conviction that the Journal’s editorial integrity depends on an owner committed to journalistic independence.”

Also, MySpace founder Brad Greenspan’s weird effort to block Murdoch by buying 25% of Dow Jones is apparently still happening. "We have put out a proposal to the family and the board, and I think they’re looking at it with great interest. We plan to meet with the board later this week – that’s a new development," he told CNBC yesterday.

Dow Jones stock dropped slightly with the news, most likely out of fear that the Bancrofts won’t like the agreement the board reached with Murdoch. The meter has slipped 5%.

Tentative Dow Jones Sale Pact Said to Give Murdoch Power to Hire and Fire at The Journal [NYT]
A statement from Wall Street Journal reporters [Romenesko]
Dow Jones Bidder to Meet Board; News Corp. Deal Reached [CNBC]