{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018302828618968387, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.298429319371728, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Does Ownership Matter?

Does media ownership affect the editorial page? Scholars such as Tim Groseclose, Jeffrey Milyo, and Tim Groeling have offered recent empirical tests for media bias in political news coverage. This article focuses on the editorial content of newspapers to examine whether a change in publishers affects a newspaper's editorial page's support for government action on public policy questions, the attention given to the major political parties, and the tone of coverage of the parties. Our content analyses compare the Wall Street Journal's editorial page before and after Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation purchased the paper with two newspapers that did not change ownership structures over the same time period (New York Times and Washington Times). We show that Murdoch's Wall Street Journal is far less supportive of government intervention in the economy, much more negative to Democrats, and much more positive to Republicans than the paper's editorial page was under Bancroft family ownership. We also show that the Wall Street Journal's changes were unique as the New York Times and Washington Times generally did not exhibit similar changes to their own editorial pages.