You're leaving out a rather important aspect of the difference between the editorial policies of the two papers, to both of which I subscribe. The Financial Times is a (British) left leaning, not centrist, newspaper, which nonethess publishes conservative columnists regularly. The Wall Street Journal is an American conservative icon, which almost never publishes the "opinions" of the extreme left. When the WSJ goes Murdoch the American conservative movement loses its most distinguished voice. The FT on the other hand will simply, if it hires the journalists, as you suggest, get more balanced and centrist. I therefore predict that the acquisition of the WSJ by Murdoch will destroy the "brands" involved if the aftermath of the acquisition is the exodus you foresee.

The suggestion is that the FT hire WSJ reporters - not anyone from the WSJ's editorial page, which is an affiliate of the right wing of the Republican Party. The WSJ outside of its editorial pages is the best newspaper in this country. I think many of those writers would be happy to disassociate themselves from Paul Gigot and company.

Mr Clifton suffers from severe US-centrism. US opinion is more conservative than in other high-income countries. Any newspaper close to the centre of opinion in the advanced countries as a whole will appear left-leaning in the US.

Sorry. It seems to be Lifton. (And yes, I do write for the FT.)