News Corp. and its chief, Rupert Murdoch, emerged triumphant from a three-month quest to win control of Dow Jones, as Bancroft family trusts representing 37% of Dow Jones voting shares agreed to accept News Corp.’s offer of $5 billion for the publishing icon. Dow Jones is the force behind the venerable Wall Street Journal, one of the most respected sources of business and market news in the world. The addition of The Wall Street Journal and other Dow Jones assets to the global News Corp. media empire would represent the crowning achievement for Rupert Murdoch, who, reportedly, has had his sights on The Wall Street Journal for more than a decade. News Corp., the parent of the Fox television network, plans to launch a cable business news channel in October that is intended to rival CNBC, and observers say that the addition of Dow Jones to the $70 billion stable of News Corp. media properties would lend great credibility to that endeavor. Since News Corp. made its intentions public in May, members of the Bancroft family—which has controlled Dow Jones for more than a century—became sharply divided over the offer. For the News Corp. offer to succeed, trusts holding at least 30% of voting Bancroft family shares would have to ratify the deal. (In all, Bancroft family trusts control over 64% of Dow Jones voting shares.) Until late last week, Murdoch had managed to solicit only 28% of Bancroft voting shares, casting doubt on the outcome of the deal. However, on Monday, a Denver-based trust representing 9% of Bancroft voting shares— which had held out for a higher purchase price—was won over after News Corp. agreed to pay an estimated $40 million in legal and advisory fees incurred by the Bancroft family. Sources also say that News Corp.’s final offer of $60 per share provides a sizable premium, as Dow Jones stock had been trading at $36 in the days immediately preceding the offer’s announcement. Although various press sources predicted that the deal would face few regulatory hurdles, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps called for “a careful factual and legal analysis of this transaction to determine how it implicates specific FCC rules,” as he cautioned that the deal “means more media consolidation and fewer independent voices.”