Rupert Murdoch is a great businessman. The Wall Street Journal is a great newspaper. Which of these reputations is likely to survive Mr Murdoch's prospective purchase of the Journal? Despite the high price he offers, "his" is the plausible answer.
鲁珀特.默多克(Rupert Murdoch)是个伟大的商人。《华尔街日报》(Wall Street Journal)是份伟大的报纸。在这两个声誉中，哪一个有可能在默多克将来收购《华尔街日报》后继续存在下去？尽管默多克提出了很高的报价，但答案也许不是他的声誉。

Business magazines and business television stand on the shoulders of the few newspapers that do the reporting, and analysis, day in and day out. The Journal is the world's leader, if only by circulation. It is also two papers in one. Its news coverage is independent, questioning and authoritative. Its research is superb and its editing professional. Meanwhile, its editorial pages are the engine of US conservatism.
商业杂志和商业电视运作的基础，是少数几份进行日常报道和分析的报纸。单从发行量来看，《华尔街日报》位居全球之首。它还是一份二合一的报纸。它的新闻报道独立、能提出质疑而且权威。研究质量属于一流，编辑方式非常专业。同时，它的社评也堪称美国保守主义的火车头。

The WSJ's readers should imagine what their world would be like if it disappeared. The obvious response is that the WSJ is not threatened with disappearance. But it is threatened, instead, with inclusion in the world's most dynamic media empire. There it will reside alongside such beacons of excellence as the UK's News of the World and the New York Post.
《华尔街日报》的读者应该设想一下，如果这份报纸消失了，他们的世界将会变成怎样。显而易见的反应是，这份报纸并没有受到消失的威胁。相反，它受到了融入全球最具活力的传媒帝国之中的威胁。在那里，它将与英国的《世新闻报》(News of the World)和《纽约邮报》(New York Post)等杰出报纸的象征并存。

Why should that matter? After all, Mr Murdoch owns some better products: the perennially loss making London Times, for one, and the more profitable Sunday Times, for another. Many admired former colleagues of mine work for News International.
这有什么关系呢？毕竟，默多克拥有一些更好的产品：一个是永远亏损的《伦敦泰晤士时报》(London Times)，另一个是盈利更好的《星期日泰晤士报》(The Sunday Times)。我以前许多备受钦佩的同事现在都在为新闻国际(News International)工作。

Yet I wonder how many even of his admirers would argue that Mr Murdoch, for all his successes, has created even one serious, authoritative and truly independent newspaper. That is not what Mr Murdoch is about. He is a populist, a lover of tabloids and a brilliant businessman. We already know three things about his influence on his publications.
然而我想知道，尽管默多克获得了诸多成功，但即便是在默多克的崇拜者中，又有多少人认为，他创办过哪怕一份严肃、权威而且真正独立的报纸。那不是默多克干的事。他是一个平民论者、一位小报爱好者、一名杰出的商人。关于他对其出版物的影响力，我们已经知道三件事。

The first is that the editorial line will almost certainly be pro-business and conservative. In the case of the WSJ, this would mark no change from its present line. That was untrue in the case of the New York Post, to take a celebrated earlier example. Indeed, since Mr Murdoch is sensitive to changes in the political mood, he may take the WSJ's editorial line to the left (it can hardly be taken to the right). But wherever it ends up, it is unlikely to be as independent.
首先，社评的路线几乎无疑将是倾向商业和保守的。就《华尔街日报》而言，这与其现有路线没什么区别。不过，举一个早先的知名事例来说，这对《纽约邮报》则并非如此。的确，由于默多克对政治气候变化非常敏感，他可能会将《华尔街日报》的社评路线引向左翼（这份报纸很难走向右翼）。但无论结果如何，它都不太可能像现在这么独立。

The second thing we know is that the paper is likely to become shriller and more populist, across the board. Down-market is the direction Mr Murdoch knows. That has been the direction in all of his publications with which I am familiar. Mr Murdoch can take substantial credit for the tide of vulgarity that now floods the UK. For good or ill, he has helped transform my country.
我们知道的第二件事是，这份报纸可能在整体上变得更为刺耳、更为平民化。默多克了解的方向是低端市场。我所熟悉的他的所有出版物都面向这个市场。目前，庸俗浪潮充斥着英国，其中大部分可以归功于默多克。无论是好是坏，他已帮助转变了我的国家。

The last and most important thing we know about Mr Murdoch is that business considerations matter. The controversies are numerous: over Australian coverage of Ansett airline, half-owned by News Corporation; over the dropping of the BBC from Star TV, whose coverage Mr Murdoch wanted to stretch into China; over the publication of the memoirs of Chris Patten, the UK's controversial last governor of Hong Kong; and over coverage in The Times at the time of the Hong Kong handover.
我们知道的关于默多克的最后一件、也是最重要的一件事情是，商业因素至关重要。相关的争论数不胜数：关于澳洲对安捷航空的新闻报道，新闻集团(News
Corporation)拥有该公司半数股权；关于从星空传媒(Star TV)的节目中拿掉英国广播公司(BBC)的节目，默多克想把星空传媒带入中国内地；关于为有争议的英国末任港督彭定康(Chris Patten)出版回忆录；关于香港主权交接时《泰晤士报》(Times)的相关新闻报道。

For the readers of the Journal, this last issue must be the most important consideration. Many newspapers exist to entertain. Business papers exist to inform. Any doubt about the accuracy and independence of their coverage destroys their value as tools. Such questions are, in this case, inevitable.
对《华尔街日报》的读者而言，这最后一个问题必定是最重要的考虑。许多报纸的存在是为了娱乐。商业报纸的存在则是为了传递信息。任何对其报道准确性和独立性的怀疑都会损害它们作为工具的价值。在这个案例中，这些问题是不可避免的。

A notionally independent board can be created to protect editors' independence, as at The Times. But in the end, editors must be aware of the interests and prejudices of the people who employ them. In some cases, they can be sure that the owner will not interfere. Where Mr Murdoch and a paper as influential as the WSJ are concerned, how credible could that belief possibly be?
可以建立一个概念性的独立董事会，来保护编辑们的独立性，正如《泰晤士报》所做的那样。但最终，编辑们必须明白雇用他们的那些人的兴趣和成见。有些时候，他们可以确定报纸所有者不会干预。在涉及到默多克和一份像《华尔街日报》这样有影响力的报纸的时候，那种信念能有多么可靠呢？

A cynical employee of the FT might argue that any faltering of the Journal can only be to its benefit. I am not that cynical. The world needs at least two respected, editorially independent and authoritative English-language business papers. One is too few. None would be a catastrophe. Great newspapers are more than just businesses. They provide the public good of reliable information on which our knowledge-intensive society depends. Competitive markets do not provide public goods well. We may discover quite soon just how bad at it markets can be.
英国《金融时报》一位玩世不恭的雇员可能会认为，《华尔街日报》遭遇的任何挫折都只会对自己有利。我可不这样认为。这个世界至少需要两家受到尊重、编辑独立、具有权威的英语商业报纸。一家太少了。没有则会是个灾难。伟大的报纸不只限于商业。它们提供具备可靠信息的公共品，而我们的知识密集型社会就依赖于这些可靠的信息。竞争市场不会很好地提供公共物品。我们可能很快会发现这样的市场会有多糟糕。