So what was the point of that special committee to oversee editorial independence at the Wall Street Journal? I must remind myself.
1.4 Roles and Responsibilities of the Special Committee.(a) The Company and Dow Jones agree that the Special Committee shall have rights of approval over each of the Special Committee Matters (as defined below)…
(b) For purposes of this Agreement, the “Editors” shall mean each of (i) the managing editor of the Wall Street Journal…[yada yada yada]
(c) For purposes of this Agreement, “Special Committee Matters” shall mean the following:
(i) Appointment and removal of each of the Editors (including any material changes in the terms and conditions of employment of each such Editor that could give rise to constructive termination, such as a material reduction in compensation, relocation of principal place of employment, material change in duties or responsibilities and the like)…
Thank goodness that’s clear. So would Marcus Brauchli resigning come under any of that?
Committee members expressed the view that learning of the Brauchli matter after the fact failed to meet the letter and the spirit of the agreement.
Goodness. It sounds like Mr Murdoch has a real fight on his hands! Let’s hope he can withstand these stalwart guardians of editorial integrity.
The Committee met subsequently and decided that there was no practical way to “unresign” Brauchli and start the process over. Under the agreement, the committee has the duty and responsibility to approve or disapprove such actions.
Shouldn’t they just disband and have done with it?
But now for Monty Python fans – the tale of Sir Robin the Brave…
3 responses to “The WSJ’s independence – safe in their…Oops!”
I’m a News Corp class A shareholder.
I never wanted any committee making key decisions anyway: Murdoch is the Chairman and CEO and I think most shareholders are happy with that. For now.
Poison pills, special committees, golden shares — all those tricks do nothing but subvert shareholder power and ultimately — shareholder value.
And everyone always forgets: the WSJ op-ed page was always slanted towards a world view Murdoch liked.
Anyway, that’s my two cents… Any class A shareholder unhappy with this can liquidate their shares. Any class B shareholder — well they can vote…
Russ
I always thought the WSJ was more right-wing than Murdoch…
I just hope no-one is paying the committee – what a waste of time…
I agree — non-executive directors, special committee members, advisory panels — all ‘innovations’ since the Cadbury Report / Higgs Review era when study after study shows that they are ineffective or have no material effect.
Frankly, as a shareholder, I’d rather they waste the money on a lavish Christmas party for the staff instead of paying it to some unaccountable special committee member.