Because what an industry of navel gazers needs is another profile of Rupert Murdoch, Vanity Fair's Michael Wolff obliged and produced this piece of journa-schism. Its side effect was a discussion about where the (almost certainly false) rumors of Michael Bloomberg wanting to buy the New York Times began, but more amusing is the brief re-telling of how Murdoch stole the Wall Street Journal away from the Bancroft family with a giant false promise:

CONTINUED »

Any buyer of Dow Jones knows that the foundation of value is the trust of readers in the brands and the journalism. Indeed, the first topic discussed by News Corp. Chairman and Chief Executive Rupert Murdoch with the Bancroft family in their negotiations was the importance of accurate and independent journalism. Mr. Murdoch told the Bancrofts that "any interference — or even hint of interference — would break the trust that exists between the paper and its readers, something I am unwilling to countenance. Apart from breaching the public's trust, it would simply be bad business."

–Excerpted from Gordon Crovitz's publisher's note in today's Wall Street Journal, one day after a deal between Rupert Murdoch and the Bancrofts (and control of the Dow Jones company) was finalized

About yesterday's 5pm deadline for the Bancroft family to make up its mind about Rupert Murdoch's bid? Yeah, deadlines are meant to be broken: there's been no decision yet.

Murdoch, meanwhile, is supposedly being pressured to raise his bid over the $60 per share price he originally put on the table, but let's be clear: The chances of that happening are on par with Col Allan jokes in Page Six disappearing forever. (Or, more accurately, sources close to Rupe say he'll soon ditch the negotiations than raise his bid. Which sounds like a negotiations tactic to us.)

So it remains that there's no clear outcome at this point, but lots of Chatty Cathys say a decision is imminent.

• Tom Snyder dies, and with him dies the legacy of the funny late-night comic.

• The Bancroft family still divided on whether or not to sell their company to an sinister old man who has deep pockets and no soul.

• Redstones continue to hate, sue and publicly debase one another.

• In moving to CNN, Campbell Brown becomes one of only three women currently hosting her own primetime cable news show, and joins the illustrious ranks of Greta "Legs" Van Susteren and Nancy "Crazypants" Grace.

• Less than a week after getting publicly lambasted by Bill Keller of the NYT for shoddy reporting, Slate's Jack Shafer wonders whether disgraced journalists should get a second chance. How topical!

… to discuss Rupert Murdoch's offer to pad their wallets, all while enjoying the free moisturizer at the Boston Hilton.

Last night, some board members voted to approve the deal. Others abstained, by which we mean they left the room during discussions. Next steps: The Bancroft family gets together on Monday to deliberate for a few days before ultimately deciding it's time to add a few more zeros to their net worth.

Dow Jones, blah blah. Here's your mediocre update: The current agreement in place between News Corp. and Dow Jones would allow Rupert Murdoch's company full power in hiring and firing top editors, which is, like, not what the Bancroft family wanted at all.

Though given the soundbite Time's Eric Pooley is running in its EXCLUSIVE!!, it makes sense Rupert never planned on having it any other way: "They're taking five billion dollars out of me and want to keep control in an industry in crisis! They can't sell their company and still control it — that's not how it works. I'm sorry!"

Oh, sure, there's some other stuff in there too, like how he doesn't muddle with his newspapers' editorial because he only hires people who agree with him, and a one-liner about giving the Journal topless Page 3 girls … with MBAs.

Ugh, that Dow Jones thing is still going on? This thing is lasting longer than that "men wearing mandals" scare back in '02. So here's what you need to know so you can resume being utterly disinterested: The Dow Jones board of directors has taken over negotiation talks with Rupert Murdoch and those other suiters, instead of letting the Bancroft family manage everything. And also, MySpace founder Brad Greenspan says he wants Dow Jones and will match News Corp.'s $60 per share offer.

How Brad is gonna do that – he only made $580 million off the sale of MySpace parent Intermix to Rupert, and, you know, attorney and banking fees aren't what they used to be – sounds very ambitious (slash unlikely) … but you can read the fine print on his blog!

From June 6's Wall Street Journal:

WSJ: What are you looking for [in choosing Dow Jones board members]?

Mr. Murdoch: People with absolutely no business connections to me nor the family. The family's selling out. They can't sell it and keep it. I have all the respect in the world for them, but you can't have it both ways. I can't put down $5 billion of my shareholders' money and not be able to run the business. That doesn't mean changing the editorial. We have no plans to change anything in the editorial.

From today's Financial Times:

The Bancroft family was on Tuesday night putting finishing touches to a series of proposals designed to guard the editorial independence of Dow Jones and the Wall Street Journal newspaper should they agree to sell the company they control to Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.

Oh good, so they're both in agreement then. Nothing can go wrong!

Oh good! In the weeks since Rupert Murdoch bid billions for Dow Jones, we're now on to the "considering" phase. In Andrew Sorkin and Richard Perez-Pena's status update this morning, the word "consider" (or a variant) is used, between the headline and the photo caption and the actual body of the story, five times. Just to make sure you're aware that the Bancroft family is thinking hard about whether to accept News Corp.'s takeover play.

Or, at least, the Bancrofts are willing to meet – physically, in person – to discuss. All caught up?