News Corp., Yahoo in talks to fend off Microsoft

Yahoo may team up with News Corp. to fend off Microsoft's bid to buy the struggling Web portal, according to a Wall Street Journal report on Wednesday. The two companies are in talks about a deal in which News Corp. would take a stake of as much as 20 percent in Yahoo. MySpace and other Web properties of News Corp. would be combined with Yahoo, according to the report, which was attributed to "people familiar with the matter." The deal would also involve a cash infusion by News Corp. and a private equity firm. Yahoo would remain independent.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

ATi Catalyst 8.2 drivers now available

Next Story

Why an Apple console would be a disaster

37 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Ok cool I agree, and in retrospect a couple of the facts I have mentioned do sound like more opinion that fact, especially as one is a future prediction.

Wikipedia does state that FOX in the No1 cable news channel in America and its 6th overall. Thats only a few million people by all accounts but I do think FOX acts as a hub for wider movements including Radio and maybe now more of the internet and the stories they tell cause debate in the wider media.

Torture is illegal in the USA and has through the past 100+ years been written into law as so.

The Whitehouse has said that it had used waterboarding

So in my mind as it has been written into law, used to prosecute soldiers in the past, which then forms a precedent, the act is illegal. If Bush wanted to use such techniques then he should have tried to pass a bill to make it legal.

Now I did read a CIA report recently, which I cant find, that stated America is in more danger from attack now than before the Iraq invasion with that, the torture issue and Guantanamo radicalizing more muslims to fight than ever before.

Personally I dont agree with torture, we are supposed to be the good guys, triumphing human rights, fighting for democracy etc... If we dont respect international law or even basic human rights then im afraid we are becoming what we are fighting. The issue of a nuclear bomb is a worst case scenario and will most probably never happen, but its already been used for less and as these people dont have representation, or until recently have been charged, we dont know its use, it wont be admissible in court and were all the people actually guilty (or had any extra useful info to give). Because it was all done illegally and away from watching eyes in a different country in Africa or Afghanistan we will never know.

I think the excitement about Yahoo is only coming from Yahoo, Microsoft and Google (as a spoiler). Lets face it, there is no shortage of perfectly good search engines. The technology is relatively mature, and easy for start-ups to get in on the idea. I don't care about adverts or advertisers, they can fight over the big boys. There will still be plenty of pickings for the small fish. People can change their default search engine with about three clicks of the mouse - even with Microsoft setting every installation of IE home page to their domain, they have been unable to seriously break into the search market. :P

I completely agree. I have Google set as my home page in both IE and Firefox. In rare instances will I use Live.com. With that being said, I think it has been nearly ten years since I have used Yahoo by actually typing in their address.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, or so Yahoo think...

Oh and Murdoch should be hung, drawn and quartered. Once someone has explained to him the real meanings of "fair and balanced" and "no spin".

Microsoft basically makes software and hardware, some good, some bad, and in the past has acted very monopolistic.

News Corp has acted illegally on numerous occasions, actually threatens people, helped Bush to take America to war, helped Bush to do so much other wrong, lies on a daily basis and is so political they might as well try to take over the Whitehouse, if they havent done so already.

Yahoo is an internet service provider and shouldnt be involved in politics. News Corp is a political propaganda machine and shouldnt be involved in the news or the internet.

"WHY THE FUSS ABOUT TORTURING PEOPLE WHO WANT US DEAD?" - you got to love FOX

(shadowmatt said @ #1)
"WHY THE FUSS ABOUT TORTURING PEOPLE WHO WANT US DEAD?" - you got to love FOX

:rolleyes: I completely agree...with Fox :D

Again, stop equating this with politics. I love how you can complain about wanting to torture terrorists that are trying to kill everyone who disagrees with them, yet in the same comment claim

(shadowmatt said @ #1)
Oh and Murdoch should be hung, drawn and quartered.

Come on, we get it - you don't like Bush, Murdoch, Fox News, etc...this has nothing to do with that and is simply a business move.

As I've said before, its very funny how this is simply turning into a political flame war. Perhaps people will understand the bigger picture and that not everything is about pushing a political agenda.

(Troll said @ #12.1)

:rolleyes: I completely agree...with Fox :D

Again, stop equating this with politics. I love how you can complain about wanting to torture terrorists that are trying to kill everyone who disagrees with them, yet in the same comment claim

Come on, we get it - you don't like Bush, Murdoch, Fox News, etc...this has nothing to do with that and is simply a business move.

As I've said before, its very funny how this is simply turning into a political flame war. Perhaps people will understand the bigger picture and that not everything is about pushing a political agenda.

I dont think you understand the bigger picture, this is not about good business sense or providing good quality services. Everything NewsCorp / Murdock does is politically motivated, it can be seen again and again. Why on earth did he have 8 phone calls to Tony Blair on the build upto the war, was it business related, if so that is probably still illegal.

The hung, drawn and quartered comment was meant as a pun, its the penalty for treason in old England. The punishment was reserved for crimes that were deemed more heinous than murder and other capital offences. The false reporting of news, twisting of facts, creating false outrage, dumbing down of TV, all for profit and political gain are in my mind treason, but on an international scale.

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavor.

Now Iraq was overthrown, Bush's reign was supported, any opposition was shouted down by fox news. They openly called people traitors for opposing the war, put soldiers lives in direct danger, mislead the American people and in his own way helped to cause the deaths of 1000's of Americans and 100,000's of Iraqis. All for power and profit.

But alas you proved my point, you agree with FOX. I though fox was a news channel reporting the news, which is meant to be facts. You are meant to form your own conclusions based on said facts, not agree with what a television program tells you to think

Fact - America has always been against torture, including waterboarding

Water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam 40 years ago. A photograph that appeared in The Washington Post of a U.S. soldier involved in water boarding a North Vietnamese prisoner in 1968 led to that soldier's severe punishment.

Earlier in 1901, the United States had taken a similar stand against water boarding during the Spanish-American War when an Army major was sentenced to 10 years of hard labor for water boarding an insurgent in the Philippines.

Fact - What Bush has done is illegal, even by Americas standards

Fact - He has put future Americans in danger by ignoring international conventions

Fox - whats all the fuss about?

There will be a point in the future where American soilders are tortured, paraded on TV by an enemy nation and America no longer has a foot to stand on. They will just make up a new term for them or fly them somewhere and torture them. The only thing Murdock cares about is that it will sell papers.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. And an FYI - I do form my own conclusions. I don't particularly watch Fox or any other news channel. I get my news from the wire. The last time I had a news channel on was during one of the Presidential debates - and that was on CNN (But not because of any political bias on my part - simply because CNN is the only HD Cable News channel that I get.)

All I can say is that the "facts" you have stated are simply opinions. Many of the statements are untrue, but because this is the internet, there really isn't much to gain from arguing. You have every right for your opinions. I do think you overestimate the power of Fox News. The audience they attract is minuscule compared to that of the other left leaning news channels, and as I have previously stated, the news is not biased, but the commentary is, and many people can not distinguish between the two.

On a personal note - I couldn't care less about waterboarding. What I care about is being able to get information from a terrorist through any means necessary in order to protect innocent people. If torturing someone prevents a nuclear attack on my country, then I am all for it.

As we've gotten way off the original topic, I shall leave it at that, and once again say we'll have to agree to disagree.

For some reason I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be disappointed at.

Feigned stupidity is even worse than genuine stupidity. Congratulations.

Yes, that could be true but you didn't counter my original statement. Regardless of whether or not they are stupid, they hold a position of power superior than yours and therefore you would not respond to their opinions in the same manner.

Yes. Yes I would if they had said something as stupid. You may cower at the might of some nobody who moderates a worthless "news" site on the Internet (boo, scary!), but not everyone shares your patheticness. I'd say the same to your face, to their face, or to anyone's face if they were equally as idiotic.

And whocares78's statement is true; Yahoo might not want to sell but its shareholders (whom basically own portions of the company) will want the money from Microsoft. If Microsoft offered enough money, the shareholders will sell.

They're free to do so. No one's stopping them. But, again, just because someone makes a bid that does NOT mean the company they're bidding on HAS to sell, WILL sell, or is in any way, shape, or form, obligated TO sell let alone (as similar idiots said in another thread) stop all business and transactions just because someone DID bid. It's beyond asinine.

The fact that you can't comprehend that or even focus on that in your replies (instead spending the brunt of being being a hypocrite) is none of my concern.

(A Clockwork Lime said @ #11)

Feigned stupidity is even worse than genuine stupidity. Congratulations.

Ok, wait. You say something, then you say I'm supposed to be disappointed. I'm really not disappointed at whatever you said (I mean really, I'm not), yet somehow that makes me pretending to be stupid which is as you stated, worse than being stupid. Then you congratulate me for something. No logical connection whatsoever.

(A Clockwork Lime said @ #11)
Yes. Yes I would if they had said something as stupid. You may cower at the might of some nobody who moderates a worthless "news" site on the Internet (boo, scary!), but not everyone shares your patheticness. I'd say the same to your face, to their face, or to anyone's face if they were equally as idiotic.

Firstly, "patheticness" is not a word. Not in English, at least. I think you should replace that made-up word with "A Clockwork Lime". What a gay name; it carries around an idiotic aura.

(A Clockwork Lime said @ #11)
The fact that you can't comprehend that or even focus on that in your replies (instead spending the brunt of being being a hypocrite) is none of my concern.

Why would I "focus" that in my replies? My original statement is still that you're being an a**-hole on the internet (the asterisks stand for letters if you didn't know). I guess it's safe to make the assumption that you are the same way in real life. Therefore I conclude you probably don't have many friends. Sorry to hear that.

So this is my final statement (as I'm not going to come back to this thread anyway, I can't bear to witness anymore of your illogical reasonings and pathetic mocking imitations of others): Get a life, get in your head that you aren't some sort of god, understand that everyone else isn't (using your favorite word here) an "idiot", and note that it really isn't my concern whether or not you succeed in life; I'll continue hanging around on these forums (making more constructive and evidence-backed responses instead of calling people "morons" ) and you can continue irritating and imitating people.

MS are getting Yahoo, only federal law can stop MS, no one in Yahoo or other companies can stop MS from buying Yahoo, its a done deal.

(Beastage said @ #10)
MS are getting Yahoo, only federal law can stop MS, no one in Yahoo or other companies can stop MS from buying Yahoo, its a done deal.

Yet another armchair admiral thinking he has a clue what he's talking about.

"Derr, dey thrown monies @ us, we r 2 sale, we r knot haf choise!!!!!!!!11111imanidiot" --Beastage

(A Clockwork Lime said @ #10.1)

Yet another armchair admiral thinking he has a clue what he's talking about.

"Derr, dey thrown monies @ us, we r 2 sale, we r knot haf choise!!!!!!!!11111imanidiot" --Beastage

I suggest you respect everyone's theories and opinions. Debate about them, but don't be a pain-in-the-a** ok? Not everyone here (including me) was very interested in economics or politics in high school. Most of us are here to talk about computers, as that is the topic of these forums. Your message has all the markings of spam and "flame" and last time I checked the rules I recall that spamming and flaming is a violation of them.

(A Clockwork Lime said @ #10.3)
Don't say stupid **** and people won't respond to you as if you were a moron. It's that simple.
if MS really want it they will just keep upping the price, until Yahoo caves in becasue of shreholder demand.. e.g. you own shares worth $10, someoen wants to buy them from you for $20 but the directors of that company say no, YOU END UP SELLING ANYWAY...

it'sa business in the end it's all about making money

(A Clockwork Lime said @ #10.3)
Don't say stupid **** and people won't respond to you as if you were a moron. It's that simple.

Welcome to the world of many opinions and many viewpoints. Sorry to disappoint you, but not everyone's theories in reality are going to agree with your postulations of perfection. I'm assuming we're all inferior to your phenomenal logic and you can just mock us all with your mighty brain sitting on its golden throne.

Here I see Beastage as a more educated person than you. Wondering why? Because Beastage expressed his opinion as is this purpose of a discussion forum; you're just the intruder who thinks he's too good to abide by the rules and can just shoot insults at people who hold more proof than he can provide to counter whatever opinion he has decided is not worthy of his expensive respect.

Continue with that mocking attitude without any proof to back up your "arguments" and I'll be curious with how much longer you'll survive here.

(If Beastage were a moderator or admin, I'd doubt you'd be replying to him like so. It's that simple).

(Mythex said @ #10.5)
Here I see Beastage as a more educated person than you.

You quite clearly have me confused with someone who gives a damn about your opinion.

Continue with that mocking attitude without any proof to back up your "arguments" and I'll be curious with how much longer you'll survive here.

Some things don't need backing up. "The sky is blue," for instance. Idiots who go around thinking that a company has to stop all business and transactions and MUST sell just because they receive an unsolicited bid is the epitome of stupidity. Sorry to disappoint you in that regard.

(If Beastage were a moderator or admin, I'd doubt you'd be replying to him like so. It's that simple).

Stupid people are stupid regardless of what meaningless title they have on the Internet. Once again: Sorry to disappoint you.

(A Clockwork Lime said @ #10.6)
Sorry to disappoint you in that regard.

For some reason I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be disappointed at.

(A Clockwork Lime said @ #10.6)
Some things don't need backing up. "The sky is blue," for instance.

Oh right, I forgot that what you said is instantly law. By the way, the sky isn't always blue, just like how you aren't always correct.

(A Clockwork Lime said @ #10.6)
Stupid people are stupid regardless of what meaningless title they have on the Internet.

Yes, that could be true but you didn't counter my original statement. Regardless of whether or not they are stupid, they hold a position of power superior than yours and therefore you would not respond to their opinions in the same manner.

And whocares78's statement is true; Yahoo might not want to sell but its shareholders (whom basically own portions of the company) will want the money from Microsoft. If Microsoft offered enough money, the shareholders will sell.

(whocares78 said @ #10.4)
if MS really want it they will just keep upping the price, until Yahoo caves in becasue of shreholder demand.. e.g. you own shares worth $10, someoen wants to buy them from you for $20 but the directors of that company say no, YOU END UP SELLING ANYWAY...

it'sa business in the end it's all about making money


Welcome to the world that you and people like you have made!

Oh, come on! Why are you people afraid of News Corp buying Yahoo? Just because you'll do a search for something like "Hillary Clinton" and the top results are articles from sites like Rush Limbaugh... What's wrong with that?

(Chugworth said @ #6)
Oh, come on! Why are you people afraid of News Corp buying Yahoo? Just because you'll do a search for something like "Hillary Clinton" and the top results are articles from sites like Rush Limbaugh... What's wrong with that? :D
Search engines should be independent of news sources... they should not be biased in anyway at all...

(Chugworth said @ #6)
Oh, come on! Why are you people afraid of News Corp buying Yahoo? Just because you'll do a search for something like "Hillary Clinton" and the top results are articles from sites like Rush Limbaugh... What's wrong with that? :D

This assumes that News Corp is more concerned with playing political games than it is with making money. Corporations want to make money - period. Individual people of course have certain political slants. Look into what politicians received money from the Google founders. The simple fact is that before Fox News came along, there were no news organizations that catered to the right. Murdoch seized this opportunity and found a niche market. Granted Fox News has the highest cable ratings, but they are nothing compared to that of the mainstream national networks. It is simply capitalism at its finest. One of the problems is that people view everything on the cable news channels to be news, when much of it is commentary. Watch the actual reporting of news when it occurs and not the talking heads and you'll see the bias isn't really as bad as the internet would make you think.

I'm betting that the majority of bashers don't actually watch the news, but simply read a headline or hear a blurb from someone and spew off garbage - and this goes for both sides.

There is a major difference between news and commentary. Some people cannot distinguish between the two. And yet others feel that there is only bias if the story goes against their beliefs.

Love it! All the people that are now going to complain (and already have) because the one major news organization that has a slant to the right may become larger. Here's a tip - the rest of them slant to the left.

ABC + NBC + CBS + CNN + MSNBC > Fox + Talk Radio...which is really the only "major" news type organizations out there in terms of sheer market size in America.

And it does appear that everyone complaining about this so far is doing so because of the politics of Rupert Murdoch.

(Troll said @ #5)
Love it! All the people that are now going to complain (and already have) because the one major news organization that has a slant to the right may become larger. Here's a tip - the rest of them slant to the left.

ABC + NBC + CBS + CNN + MSNBC > Fox + Talk Radio...which is really the only "major" news type organizations out there in terms of sheer market size in America.

And it does appear that everyone complaining about this so far is doing so because of the politics of Rupert Murdoch.

Uh huh, and that explains why I dont want him to get it?... I think companies like Yahoo should stay independent from the media... Yahoo isn't a news company like fox, cnn, abc, cbs...etc is... don't force them into a slant because you are partily owned by one...

(neufuse said @ #5.1)

Uh huh, and that explains why I dont want him to get it?... I think companies like Yahoo should stay independent from the media... Yahoo isn't a news company like fox, cnn, abc, cbs...etc is... don't force them into a slant because you are partily owned by one...

Not saying they should be forced, as I don't read Yahoo. Sorry if I was insinuating that :)

Personally I get most of my news directly from the wire or on Drudge since he doesn't really report, but rather just collects stories that are interesting to him. Hard to show a bias when you simply link to a story on the AP or Reuters.

WTF?

That's worse.. Murdoch getting a hold of an even larger slice of world media? I'll NEVER use Yahoo again if this happens.

Mircosoft come back, all is forgiven.

Microsoft should just give up, they won't get Yahoo and it is obvious Yahoo will go to great lengths to stop them. Perhaps MS should try a different strategy and try making their internet search etc better, rather then just trying to buy out Yahoo. It's not like they don't have the resources to make it happen, just a thought.

EDIT: I wounder what Yahoo would do if Microsoft paid off News Corp to back out of the deal...I know it would never happen but what if it did? this "little" skirmish between Microsoft and Yahoo is somewhat amusing :P

money talks BS walks, if MS offers yahoo enough money the shareholders will decide they want a piec of the pie.. it wont have anythign to do with the directors, who are just trying to keep their jobs as they know MS will dump the board.. in the end shareholders want MONEY thats why they bought shares.. the borad wants to get as much money as they can so rejected MS offer.

It seems to me that the most ideal situation would be for News Corp to completely buy out Yahoo. Combining Yahoo with Microsoft or Google would create a company with too much power on the Internet. But if you combine Yahoo with News Corp, then suddenly they would be significant competition for both Microsoft and Google. That would help to level out the playing field in the search engine/ web advertising arena and make it a good 3-way battle.

My only concern there is that Google would be the company with all their eggs in one basket.

(theyarecomingforyou said @ #1.1)
I'm sorry but News Corp already have far too much power... I would rather they didn't get hold of Yahoo.

That maybe so, but I think Yahoo would beg to differ, they'd rather News Corp get a hold of them then Microsoft.

I think it would be bad for everyone if News Corp (aka FOX) had a big internet company in their pocket. I'm not sure how much more slanted news coverage and fear-mongering I can handle.

(glazzz said @ #1.3)
I think it would be bad for everyone if News Corp (aka FOX) had a big internet company in their pocket. I'm not sure how much more slanted news coverage and fear-mongering I can handle.

News corp already owns a large chunk of the internet, in addition to owning most of America's media.

MySpace
IGN Entertainment (IGN, GameSpy, Rotten Tomatoes, TeamXbox, and Askmen.com)
Photobucket

It has also gained control of DirecTV. News corp could send out propaganda and reach everyone in America through one of its outlets. Dozens of places all reporting the news that Rupert Murdoch wants you to believe--shaping your reality into the reality of Rupert Murdoch.

And you thought Microsoft was scary? Microsoft doesn't know WTF is going on. That's why it tried to buy Yahoo. It's a move of desperation. It makes MS look bad, and it isn't going to benefit MS in the long run if the deal goes through.

Oh yeah, that's right, don't tell them, we need to encourage them to throw away that $45B on lame duck Yahoo, rather than use it on anything productive like improving their mediocre operating systems.

(toadeater said @ #1.4)

News corp already owns a large chunk of the internet, in addition to owning most of America's media...


You guys have both said a mouthful.

This whole business stinks to high heaven! Neither Microsoft nor News Corp.have any business buying Yahoo! -- though for vastly different reasons in my opinion. But if I had to pick one over the other, I'd pick Microsoft, because frankly, any company other than Fox would be a better choice.