By Jerry Ceppos

The Bancroft family clearly is treating the fate of Dow Jones seriously. The family is considering the rational question of a huge price for the company against the emotional question of giving up many decades of family ownership of America’s best newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, and assorted other enterprises.

Lost in the shuffle are two questions that make these calm issues—discussed in the offices of high-priced lawyers and perhaps over gin and tonics at the club—absolutely ridiculous.

Question 1: Who ever heard of an agreement that would prohibit the purchaser from exercising the usual rights of management? If the purchaser is that frightening, should the deal even be considered?

Question 2: Haven’t the best publishers—and editors and reporters and photographers—always “interfered” with the editorial product? The best haven’t told the staff to go easy on China, as some fear Rupert Murdoch would do. But they certainly stepped in and critiqued a headline or suggested an investigative project–and they certainly mucked around in the newsroom budget. (As I understand it, Murdoch would have the right—obviously—to set the budget numbers, which makes all this talk of independence ridiculous.)

From the sidelines, I worry, as many others do, that Murdoch will ruin a wonderful newspaper. But I also wonder if the owning family has stopped to consider just how ridiculous it is to try to prevent an owner from exercising the usual rights of ownership—particularly from the newspaper whose editorial page is the spokesman for American capitalism.