Things aren't looking good for the Wall Street Journal in terms of resisting the Murdoch takeover bid.

Via Romenesko, the Journal itself is reporting on a bitter rift opening within the 34-member Bancroft Family regarding the News Corp. offer.

When members of Dow Jones & Co.'s controlling Bancroft family gathered 10 days ago for a meeting at a Boston hotel, they expected a fight. Some wanted to entertain a $5 billion bid for the company by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., but Michael Elefante, a powerful Dow Jones director and family trustee, had opposed it.

Instead of a rebuff, the family members got a huge surprise: Mr. Elefante had switched sides.

(snip)

A look inside the family's deliberation shows four crucial factors laid the groundwork for the Bancrofts' dramatic change of position. One was the shift by Mr. Elefante, a Boston lawyer who oversees the family's trusts. A rift in the 34-member family widened as an increasingly noisy wing, especially those in the younger generation, agitated for Mr. Murdoch's offer to be considered.

It appears the elder members of the Bancroft family have been sold out to Murdoch by their own generation of squalling baby NeoCons.  That's what happens when cousins start marrying each other and nobody can be bothered to swim past their own shallow end of the country club's gene pool.  You sire a generation of Jonah Goldbergs. 

Pity.  While the Journal's Editorial page should probably have a sign on the door reading, "Inpatient Day Lounge", I had always gotten the impression that their reporting and editorial standards were rock-solid and reliable.

I'm sure Murdoch will do away with that in short order.

The groups are meeting tomorrow.

Representatives of the Bancroft family are planning to meet with Mr. Murdoch on Monday, according to people familiar with the matter.

The meeting is expected to deal solely with issues related to journalistic integrity, these people said. The family said Thursday that it would meet with Mr. Murdoch "to determine whether, in the context of the current or any modified News Corp. proposal, it will be possible to ensure the level of commitment to editorial independence, integrity and journalistic freedom that is the hallmark of Dow Jones."

Forgive me for saying so, but meeting with Rupert Murdoch to discuss journalistic integrity strikes me as kind of like meeting with the polio virus to talk about Dr. Salk.  But good luck with that.

Me, I tend to agree with Slate's Jack Shafer, at least on the topic of Uncle Rupert:

Setting aside for a moment Murdoch's many skills and accomplishments, he's not particularly interested in the accurate and fair presentation of facts. He believes the rest of the press is liberal and that the conservative swing of his Fox News Channel and New York Post exist to correct that bias. He has routinely used his publications to help elect British politicians (John Major and Tony Blair) and his enterprises to advance personal business and political interests. (The Independent predicted last year that once Blair stepped down from office, Murdoch would reward him with a seat on the News Corp. board. We shall see. For more of Murdoch's mucking about, see these previous columns: "The Murdoch Street Journal," "Eight More Reasons to Distrust Murdoch," "Meet Mrs. Murdoch," and "Murdoch Lies to the Financial Times.")

Murdoch's politicking is so transparent that it's hard to accuse him of pursing "hidden agendas." Once it became politically expedient, he was happy to host a political fundraiser for the liberal Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) in 2006. In 2004, he arranged a similar event for liberal Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). Murdoch isn't bad for journalism because he's a conservative. He's bad for journalism because he has no principles.