Merrill Lynch & Co. (NYSE: MER) may wind up selling its 20% stake in Bloomberg L.P., the parent of Bloomberg News, to Mike Bloomberg.

Bloomberg, whose personal fortune is estimated by Forbes magazine at $5 billion, can easily afford the buy back the 20% stake in his company that he does not already own. Given its financial condition, Merrill better hope that the New York mayor is willing to open his check book. Other media companies are not going to shell out big bucks for a minority stake in the company where I worked for seven years. This is especially true given that many of Bloomberg's biggest customers in Wall Street are cutting spending given the uncertainties in the world's financial markets.

Maybe the private equity players would be willing to pay up provided that they could see an exit strategy through an IPO. I don't see that happening either. Bloomberg, which the Wall Street Journal says has the right of first refusal for the sale, likes being a private company because it enables it to march to the beat of its own drummer. That was especially true when Mike Bloomberg ran the show.

Forbes magazine needs a good map or two.

The business magazine's article "America's Wildest Weather Cities" lists two places that don't exist. Blue Hill, Mass, dubbed the windiest city, is incorrectly described as a Boston suburb. Actually, there is a place called Blue Hill, The Blue Hill Reservation, a 7,000-acre state park that seems lovely. The Web site lists its address in Milton, Mass. There is no town named Blue Hill in the Boston area, according to the Greater Boston Convention and Vistors Bureau.

More embarrassing is the description of Springfield, Mississippi. I could find no town by that name in Mississippi although there is a Springfield Plantation near Natchez which reviewers on Yahoo Travel seemed to like. Even odder, though, was that Forbes describes Springfield as "a slightly elevated city in the Ozarks at 1,266 feet." As this helpful map on Wikipedia shows, the Ozarks don't go into Mississippi. Interestingly, there is a city in Missouri named Springfield that happens to be located at an elevation of 1,266 feet and is known as Queen of the Ozarks. Perhaps, Forbes was thinking of that Springfield or the one where the Simpsons reside.

Though I hate to spoil today's company holiday at Forbes, there is a bigger issue at stake here. In today's age of instant communication, readers need to be more skeptical now than they ever have been. Wrong information can be spread with an alarming speed.

Should Forbes have caught these errors before the story was published? Of course. But the news gathering and writing process isn't fool proof. Mistakes, though unfortunate, are unavoidable. No one is perfect.

But what separates journalists from people who just post stuff is how they deal with errors when they are pointed out. I've contacted the reporter who wrote the story and will let you know if I get a response.

Update: Forbes has corrected the errors.

If there is a bidding war for Dow Jones & Co. (NYSE: DJ) Rupert Murdoch's lust for power will trump the desire for profits from private equity players such as Blackstone Group LP, Texas Pacific Group or KKR, or any other potential bidders.

Shares of the New York-based financial information company have already soared past the insanely high unsolicited $60 per share offer the CEO of News Corp (NYSE: NWS) has made. Murdoch, though, has coveted the Wall Street Journal for years and would be willing to pay an even steeper price to turn his dream into reality. It wouldn't be a stretch for Murdoch to bid $65 or $70 to snap up Dow Jones.

Other potential buyers view Dow Jones as just a business while Murdoch is most interested in the company's ability to influence the public heading into a presidential election. He is an uneconomical bidder who doesn't mind if some of his media properties lose a little money provided that they further his political agenda.

To be sure, there are some sound economic reasons for a merger between Dow Jones and News Corp. The Journal could certainly give a boost to the nascent Fox business news channel. Though Dow Jones has gotten better under CEO Rich Zannino, the company was mismanaged for years, so there are no doubt still cost savings to be had.

But many questions are yet to be answered.

Would Murdoch -- who has vowed not to interfere with the Journal's news coverage -- keep that promise for other Dow Jones properties? What would become of MarketWatch, Barron's and Dow Jones Newswires? Would WSJ.com remain a subscription service?