In May 2012, Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Company announced the purchase of 63 newspapers, including 23 dailies, from the debt-ridden Media General Company. The transaction was a course reversal for Buffett, who earlier had said he wouldn’t buy newspapers, and created a major new player in the industry. It also left Media General – whose history with newspapers dates back to the mid-1800′s – with only one remaining daily, the Tampa Tribune, which many predict it will still try to sell.

The purchase, seen as a rare vote of confidence in a struggling industry, also capped a period of intense change in U.S. newspaper ownership. In the last 18 months many better known newspaper companies divested most or all of their holdings while a number of new entities, including hedge funds and private equity firms, jumped in. According to the investment banking firm of Dirks, Van Essen & Murray, which monitors newspaper transactions, a total of 71 daily newspapers were sold as part of 11 different transactions during 2011, the busiest year for sales since 2007.

And newspapers were not the only media to undergo major changes. The last 18 months also saw local television sales reach new heights, the merging of Newsweek and the Daily Beast, Comcast’s acquisition of NBC Universal, the Huffington Post’s movement into web TV and further reach among U.S. broadcast companies into the Hispanic market.

The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism has compiled a new interactive database to help users make sense of the changes at the highest levels.

Who Owns the News Media provides detailed statistics on the companies that now own our nation’s news media outlets, from newspapers to local television news stations to radio to digital, and this accompanying summary highlights the major changes of the year.

Read the summary of findings

Explore the database

Facebook’s May 18 IPO — which set the market value of the social-networking giant at $105 billion — sparked significant discussion on Twitter, blogs and Facebook itself, with more expressions of skepticism than confidence about the stock’s value, according to a report by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.

Users of Twitter were the most doubtful, as almost four times as much of the overall conversation from May 14-20 (22%) consisted of claims that Facebook stock was overhyped than it was worth buying (6%). Blogs and Facebook also included more doubt than optimism, although by smaller margins. Even on Facebook, though, the gap was nearly two-to-one.

Read the full report.

Rupert Murdoch made headlines this week with the resignation of Wall Street Journal managing editor Marcus Brauchli, a reported $580 million bid for Newsday and more talk of how he is transforming the Journal‘s front page coverage to take on the New York Times.

How has the 119-year-old Journal changed since the Australian media magnate took over the paper on Dec. 13, 2007? A Project for Excellence in Journalism examination has the numbers. The study looked at the Journal front page every other weekday.

In the first four months of Murdoch’s stewardship, the Journal‘s front page has clearly shifted focus, de-emphasizing business coverage that was the paper’s franchise, while placing much more emphasis on domestic politics and devoting more attention to international issues. But it is not, at least not yet, as broad as the New York Times on the same days.

Under the Murdoch regime, the single biggest change in front-page coverage occurred with politics and the presidential campaign. From Dec. 13, 2007 through March 13, 2008, coverage more than tripled, jumping to 18% of the newshole compared with 5% in the four months before the ownership change.

Since the front page has a finite amount of space, that increase in political coverage seems to have come largely at the expense of business news. In the Murdoch era, coverage of corporate America has plunged by more than half — to 14% of the front-page space from 30% in the months before the sale.

Among the other notable gainers in the Murdoch era is coverage of foreign events that do not directly involve the U.S., which jumped to 25% from 18%. (Roughly one third of that (9%) is related to overseas economic and business affairs.)

Coverage of government also increased a bit, rising to 4% from 3%.

Aside from the business beat, other subjects that experienced drops in coverage under Murdoch include health and medicine, which fell to less than 1% from 5%. Transportation issues fell to 0% on the days studied from 3%. And the environment dropped to 1% from 3%.

Several key categories appeared unchanged. Economics — which includes the faltering U.S. economy, the mortgage crisis and other macro concerns — remained at 15%. Coverage of foreign events in which the U.S. played a major role has been steady at 4%, as has lifestyle coverage (about 4%) and education (3%).

One clear example of the changing news agenda was the Journal‘s front page on April 21, a day before the Pennsylvania primary. The paper led with a package of two campaign stories under the headline, “Latest Attacks Roil Democrats.” One story recalled Barack Obama’s political education as a Chicago politician and the other chronicled the growing concerns of Democratic Party leaders about the bitter primary battle. A more traditional Journal story — chronicling problems at smaller-to-midsize banks — sat at the bottom half of the page where it shared space with a piece about easing tensions between China and a small island controlled by Taiwan.

Ever since Murdoch first evinced interest in the Journal, much has been made of his apparent desire to revamp the paper in order to more directly challenge the New York Times. (A recent Newsweek story on Murdoch reported that he sent Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. a letter declaring “Let the battle begin.”)

So how does the news agenda of Murdoch’s Journal compare with that of the Times? An analysis of both papers’ front pages from Dec. 13–March 13 reveals that they are not the same, certainly not yet. When it comes to politics, the Journal, with 18% of the newshole devoted to the topic, has moved much closer to its possible new rival. But it has not caught up with the Times, which filled 27% of its newshole with politics in those four months.

Despite the reduced coverage of business, the Journal‘s front pages still gave much more coverage to that issue (14%) than the Times did (4%). And the Journal generated considerably more coverage of economics (15%) than did the Times (9%).

On the subject of foreign affairs involving the United States, the Times (at 8%) produced about twice as much coverage as the Journal (4%). But the boost in the Journal‘s coverage of international events not directly related to the U.S. (25%) surpassed the Times‘ attention to that subject (17%). It should be noted however, that the Journal‘s lead in that category stems from its interest in foreign business and economics, which combined to fill 9% of the paper’s front-page newshole. On the Times‘ front pages, international business and economics accounted for only 1% of the coverage.

So thus far in the Murdoch era, the newly staked out battleground between the Journal and Times seems to be located mostly on the playing field of politics.

Read more about current trends in the news media at journalism.org.

About one-in-four Americans (24%) say they are following the story of Murdoch’s acquisition of Dow Jones & Co, which publishes the Journal. Of those who are following the news, fully 60% believe that the change in ownership will not make much difference in the quality of the newspaper. About one-in-five (19%) say that Murdoch’s ownership of the paper will make it worse while 11% say that the change will make it better.

The deal stirred intense interest among media insiders, but little attention among the public, the Pew survey found. Just 7% followed news of the purchase very closely, with another 17% following it fairly closely and 22% paying only a little attention to developments. More than half of the public (54%) said they were not following this story at all closely.

Among the core audience for the deal — those who followed the story very closely — more say that the Journal will get worse rather than better under Murdoch (by 33% to 18%). However, a plurality (42%) of those who have been tracking the story very closely expect the change in ownership will not make much difference.

There also are some partisan differences in views of the purchase. About a quarter of Democrats (27%) say that Rupert Murdoch will make the newspaper worse, compared with 6% of Republicans who express this opinion. It is important to note, however, that more than half of all Republicans, Democrats and independents do not think that Murdoch’s control of the Wall Street Journal will make much difference.

Interest in Murdoch’s purchase was higher among wealthier people than among those with lower household incomes. Nearly three-in-ten (29%) of those with household incomes of at least $75,000 a year followed news of the deal very or fairly closely, compared with 19% of those with lower incomes. Men were more likely than women to be following news of the story very or fairly closely, the poll found.

Survey data measuring public interest in the top news stories of the week was collected Aug 3-6 from a nationally representative sample of 1,015 adults.

Read the full report at people-press.org

Chronology of Murdoch’s U.S. print holdings

As the world ponders the implications of Rupert Murdoch’s $5 billion bid to buy Dow Jones, there’s been broad speculation about how he might operate the company’s flagship Wall Street Journal. Those scrutinizing Murdoch’s U.S. newspaper holdings for clues to his stewardship of the Journal have frequently cited his in-your-face conservative New York Post tabloid as Exhibit A, and his ownership of papers in Europe as Exhibit B, from the Times of London to the tabloid Sun, complete with topless Page 3 girls.

But what is Murdoch’s record in the American newspaper business?

American newspapering is far different than in Europe. In England, the bulk of a newspaper’s revenues come from circulation, and a tabloid strategy can be highly profitable. American newspapers, in contrast, generate roughly 80% of their revenue from advertising. Circulation, if its not attractive to advertisers, can prove frankly counterproductive. Some American newspapers have even scaled back on “unprofitable” circulation to save money.

Although Murdoch’s American newspaper holdings now include only the Post and community papers in Brooklyn and Queens, he once published dailies in San Antonio, Chicago, and Boston as well a supermarket tab and a liberal alternative weekly. In the 1980s, he appeared to be pursuing a strategy of buying tabloids in several major American markets, a venture abandoned eventually in favor of his vision to build a fourth TV network.

Murdoch’s history with U.S. newspapers would not, on its face, seem to indicate a single clear corporate strategy. In several instances, he bought papers at the last minute before extinction at remainder prices. In the end, Murdoch has not stuck with any American newspaper other than the New York Post, which he still operates at a substantial loss. He did, in some cases, reap sales profits that were plowed into other sectors of his media empire. A number of his papers were sold after he ran afoul of the FCC’s ban on cross-ownership that prevents one company from owning a TV station and newspaper in the same market, a sign that when pushed, Murdoch has put more of his passion into American television than American print.

Here’s a snapshot of some of Murdoch’s current and former U.S. print holdings. For a complete chronology, read the full report at journalism.org.

New York Post

Purchased: In 1976 for $30 million

Sold: In 1988 for $37.6 million

Re-purchased: In 1993 for $25 million

Bottom line: Circulation has grown, but the paper, often described as a guilty second read for upscale Manhattanites, is a perennial money loser.

Murdoch originally bought this New York tabloid in 1976 from long-time owner Dorothy Schiff, who had made it arguably the most liberal newspaper in the country. The editorial slant shifted under Murdoch, but ultimately his TV interests conflicted with the Post’s ownership. FCC rules barred one company from owning a TV station and newspaper in the same city and Murdoch had purchased local TV station WNYW. So he sold the paper.

In 1993, with the Post apparently on the brink of shutting down, Murdoch offered to buy it back if the FCC granted him a waiver. Several New York politicians fought for Murdoch, including then Governor Mario Cuomo who was often skewered on its editorial pages. A frothy mix of gossip, grit, and conservative ideology, the paper, with a current circulation of about 690,000 is estimated to lose millions each year, so many that it seems unlikely most publicly traded corporations would justify sustaining it. (A 2005 Business Week story put that number between $15 and $30 million a year.) It is the one U.S. daily Murdoch currently owns.

Village Voice

Purchased: In 1977, along with New York magazine and New West magazine for $7.6 million

Sold: In 1985 for $55 million

Bottom line: The paper enjoyed an increase in advertising and profitability under Murdoch, according to a New York Times story at the time of the sale.

While the Post might have tilted rightward with Murdoch, The Voice—the Manhattan weekly that was the granddaddy of the nation’s liberal alternative press—remained relatively free of editorial interference from it new owner. According to the Voice’s own account, Murdoch reportedly once wanted a reporter fired, but backed off when the editor refused. The sale of the paper helped free up cash that bankrolled Murdoch’s launch of the Fox broadcast network in 1986.

TimesLedger and Courier-Life Group Newspapers

Purchased: In 2006 for $16 million

Bottom Line: It’s too early to judge.

It may not have attracted much fanfare, but Murdoch recently bought these chains, a total of 28 community papers in Brooklyn and Queens. They may not be the Village Voice or the Post, but the papers have more than 100,000 combined readers in those boroughs. A Dow Jones purchase by Murdoch would add more weekly papers to his stable since the company’s Ottaway subsidiary publishes more than a dozen weeklies. In general, smaller local papers have been less susceptible to some of the newspapers industry’s recent circulation and revenue ills than larger metro dailies. Footnote: The timeline dates and figures included in this summary were gathered from a variety of sources including newspaper articles, corporate statements and company histories.

Click here to read the full report, including a complete chronology of Murdoch’s U.S. print holdings.

The most dramatic recent case is in Los Angeles, where several groups are now interested in buying the Los Angeles Times, or in some cases its parent, the Tribune Co. Private owners or aspiring ones also have emerged in Boston, Hartford, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Akron and elsewhere.

For the most part, however, these new private buyers are different than the patriarchal local publishers of the past. People like music mogul David Geffen in Los Angeles, or former General Electric CEO Jack Welch in Boston, made their mark and their fortune in other businesses. In this sense, they are similar to modern owners of sports teams, rich folk who then enter into the sports ownership business as a second act in life. That is a departure from the earlier newspaper patriarchs, such Adolph Ochs, Joseph Pulitzer or E.W. Scripps, for whom journalism—and the tough-minded independence of the news—were the source of both their fortunes and their legacies.

Read the full report for a rundown of the different private groups who have either bought or are seeking to buy papers in 2006.