Have you checked News Corp.'s (NYSE: NWS) stock price lately? It's pretty close to the 52-week low. Last Thursday, before the Fourth of July holiday began, News Corp.'s shares closed at $14.76. The 52-week low is $14.58, and the 52-week high is $24.95. As can be seen, it's had quite a fall. And what about competitor Viacom (NYSE: VIA)? The company's stock closed on Thursday with a price of $29.70. That was, in fact, the 52-week low. The 52-week high for Viacom is $44.95. Again, a pretty big dive.

Is it time to enter these two names? From a valuation perspective, considering their growth prospects, the stock prices do make one pause for consideration. They seem cheaper than colleagues Disney (NYSE: DIS) and Time Warner (NYSE: TWX) from certain angles, although the latter two media businesses do have higher dividend yields. But with the big decline in the stock prices, traders certainly have to be looking at them as perhaps candidates for a bounce-back in the second half of the year, especially if the oil situation improves.

I think that's the big problem here. With oil and financials acting in negative ways for the economy, the entire market is one huge growling bear in a bad mood. And that has made me very reticent about initiating a trading position in either News Corp. or Viacom, though I really, really am interested in doing so. I think value trades like this might very well simply be tests of patience at this point. I sense that both these stocks will be higher by the end of the year, but so what? These stocks will probably merely move along with the rest of the major averages, and that movement could be in the downward direction. And News Corp. has been having issues with MySpace.

Seth MacFarlane is the genius behind News Corp.'s (NYSE: NWS) Family Guy animated television series. But why should News Corp. have all the fun programming cool content? That's apparently what Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) was thinking when it signed up Seth MacFarlane to produce a series of short animated clips for the Google Content Network.

According to The New York Times, MacFarlane has created something called Seth MacFarlane's Cavalcade of Cartoon Comedy. Little two-minute clips will be distributed to various websites that key in on the youthful male demographic which loves Family Guy. When users click on the clips, they will perhaps see an ad before the thing starts or some sort of banner attached to it. They might also simply see the name of the presenting sponsor before watching. Google will split monies generated by the ads with MacFarlane, the website that features the clip, and Media Rights Capital, the entity which sells the inventory.

I love the idea of the Google Content Network and I think that, over time, it should be a great success, but as with any novel platform, it all comes down to the word in the middle -- content. Google will live and die by the quality of the content because, although lesser-quality stuff might still find an audience in other mediums, the web has such intense competition for eyeballs that have minuscule attention spans. If the clips don't grab the viewer right away, then the ad inventory won't be as valuable to the buyers.

I didn't think Get Smart was going to come in at number one, but that's exactly what happened, according to Boxofficemojo. The film, distributed by Time Warner (NYSE: TWX), took in an estimated $39 million at domestic theaters. The film, quite frankly, looks horrible, and I don't get the fascination people have with Steve Carell's supposed "comedic talents." I don't really find him funny. Doesn't matter, though, because moviegoers have crowned Carell king of the box-office weekend whether I like it or not.

I'm actually more concerned with the race for second place between Marvel's (NYSE: MVL) The Incredible Hulk and DreamWorks Animation's (NYSE: DWA) Kung Fu Panda. Both are estimated as of this writing to have booked a little more than $21 million in ticket sales. I'm concerned about this because I own shares of Marvel, and I'm disappointed in the movie's box-office performance. As of now, the new Hulk has about $96 million in terms of total gross. The fact that it hasn't scored over $100 million by now, coupled with it experiencing a 60% drop for this weekend compared to its debut weekend, leaves me less than satisfied.

Viacom's (NYSE: VIA) The Love Guru bombed. Looks like you can't always count on stars to deliver the important opening-weekend audience. Are people getting sick of Mike Myers? (Jonathan Berr wondered the same thing.) He was only able to conjure up about $14 million for Viacom shareholders, bringing his film to a fourth-place debut. That's embarrassing for Myers, but unlike Steve Carell, he is genuinely funny (although maybe not so much in this particular film, it seems). News Corp.'s (NYSE: NWS) M. Night Shyamalan movie The Happening grossed around $10 million and came in fifth.

Steven Spielberg's DreamWorks baby is preparing to leave Viacom (NYSE: VIA). That sounds bad, doesn't it? I mean, Viacom should, in theory, be freaked out about losing the star asset.

Yet, an analyst working at JP Morgan has a different take on things. According to Bloomberg, Imran Khan thinks that DreamWorks may be perceived as an expensive business asset. He pointed out that the expenses associated with DreamWorks helped drive a 22% decline in operating income for Viacom's film division in 2007. He further pointed out that films with more modest budgets will aid in generating better returns and will, in fact, reduce the risk of investing in the movie business.

Khan is absolutely correct on his call. I've been talking about the need to reduce film budgets for a long time now, probably to the point where people are sick of me, so I'm always glad when I read an opinion such as this. Only problem is, will the studios listen? Well, they should. Disney (NYSE: DIS), Time Warner (NYSE: TWX), News Corp. (NYSE: NWS), and Sony (NYSE: SNE) would all benefit from increased financial restraint when it comes to the business plans of their respective film units.

I read an interesting article over at CNBC about News Corp.'s (NYSE: NWS) MySpace asset. It seems that the social-networking site wants to do something about the fact that it won't succeed in booking $1 billion in net sales before the conclusion of the conglomerate's fiscal year. MySpace will undergo an aesthetic overhaul to make the site more appealing. As it is now, many users might find the site too busy and not so friendly in terms of navigation. The changes will take place over time, beginning this week and concluding in the fall.

The question on my mind now is, did News Corp. really need MySpace? Sure, the site has a heck of a lot of registered users, well over 100 million worldwide, but now people are wondering how effectively these users can be exploited in terms of generating economic value. The article mentioned the disappointing results so far from an advertising deal made with Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) back in 2006, one which had a $900 million figure attached to it.

The problem here for News Corp. is that users are fickle and may eventually find another MySpace in the future (obviously, Facebook is an example of how social networking continues to evolve and how any big brand in this arena can be challenged at any time). That wouldn't be good for long-term growth. Another problem cited is the fact that active MySpace users just want to socialize with their friends and/or network; they don't care about the ads. There's a lot of truth to this claim, and it's a huge issue going forward.

I recently wrote about World Wrestling Entertainment's (NYSE: WWE) million-dollar giveaway plans. This is the scheme that sees the Mr. McMahon character reward viewers who register at the company's website with portions of his fortune. He calls them up on the phone during WWE's RAW program and doles out various sums; according to this press release, one winner got $200,000, while another player received $125,000. One poor hapless soul won $2! Remember, Mr. McMahon is an evil guy.

I tuned in to see how the contest would be presented and to get some sense of how it was received. It seemed a bit awkward and slow at times. A few in the audience screamed that they were bored. Personally, I thought it was goofy fun to see Vince McMahon calling people to hand out some of his money and enjoyed it for what it was. But WWE will need to optimize the segment and try to make it more exciting, as I don't think it came off exactly as it wanted. McMahon is supposed to keep handing out $1 million a week for an unspecified time period, so the company will have more chances to improve the presentation.

WWE wants to really juice the ratings for the RAW brand, hoping that viewers beyond the hardcore fan base will stop watching networks owned by CBS (NYSE: CBS), Disney (NYSE: DIS), News Corp. (NYSE: NWS), and General Electric (NYSE: GE) long enough to sample the spectacle of the WWE product (of course, GE's NBC Universal owns the USA cable network, which RAW runs on). McMahon is smart to be trying something like this since WWE will be working its way up to perhaps one of its biggest pay-per-view opportunities ever: Wrestlemania 25. With a milestone like that coming, the company has a chance of really expanding its brand equity and setting the stage for long-term growth.

Marvel's (NYSE: MVL) movie The Incredible Hulk was incredibly disappointing (to me at least). No, I'm not talking about the quality of the movie. I didn't actually see it. But Boxofficemojo is reporting that it has grossed an estimated $54.5 million at domestic theaters over the weekend. While that was good enough for first place, it wasn't good enough for shareholders. The movie bombed, plain and simple.

Why am I being so hard on a number-one movie? It's not so difficult to understand. The awful Hulk movie that was released back in 2003 grossed $62.1 million in its opening weekend. There's no way to spin this. We've had five years of inflation between that terrible flick and this new iteration. Simply put, it should have grossed at least $65/$70 million, especially on the heels of Iron Man. I'm a shareholder of Marvel, and I don't like the fact that the success of Marvel's first movie of the summer didn't synergize a little better with the angry green guy.

Focusing on the positive, Marvel was able to beat DreamWorks Animation (NYSE: DWA) and its Kung Fu Panda project. The cartoon took in about $34 million and came in second. M. Night Shyamalan's The Happening, distributed by News Corp. (NYSE: NWS), did okay by coming in third with a gross of around $30 million. Some analysts thought that the horror flick would do a little bit less than that number. Personally, I thought it should have come in second place considering Shyamalan's name, but I guess people aren't as excited as they used to be about his exercises in cinematic twists (the fact that it was rated R also inhibited its blockbuster potential). Sony's (NYSE: SNE) Adam Sandler comedy You Don't Mess with the Zohan did in fact get messed with yet again, dropping two spots to fourth place, grossing about $16 million. I've heard bad reviews on this one. Viacom (NYSE: VIA) and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull were daring enough for fifth place. Everyone's favorite archaeologist has now breached the $275 million level. Great to see a favorite character of mine from the past doing so well.

Yesterday, I wrote about my nervousness over Marvel's (NYSE: MVL) The Incredible Hulk. Today, I'd like to talk about how I wouldn't be so nervous if the Iron Man sequel ended up being directed by someone other than Jon Favreau. There are two excellent articles on The Motley Fool discussing this issue, one by Nathan Alderman and one by Marvel expert Tim Beyers. At the time those articles were published earlier in the week, it had seemed that Marvel was reticent about ponying up a higher compensation package for Mr. Favreau on the heels of the awesome success of the first movie starring Robert Downey, Jr. David Maisel, chairman of Marvel Studios, apparently wants to be very conservative about the company's above-the-line costs. Alderman thinks Marvel should give Favreau the requested raise, while Beyers understands the Hollywood dynamics going on and can see why both sides are doing what they are doing.

By the time my own piece is published, it's possible Favreau may be confirmed as the director of the second Iron Man (as I write this, there are rumors that a deal has been offered). Regardless of what happens, I'd like to offer my opinion on whether or not Favreau is an absolutely necessary component for an Iron Man sequel.

He isn't. And if shareholders think he is, then they had better rethink their investment in Marvel. What shareholders must ask themselves is this: Is it the director that is responsible for the ultimate success of a Marvel film, or is it Marvel management and the intangible value of the Marvel intellectual-property portfolio? Which element adds more equity? As far as I'm concerned as a shareholder, I'm investing in Marvel. I'm not investing in Jon Favreau. Any investor who believes that any one director is indispensable is going to be in for a stomach-churning ride, because when the day comes that a Jon Favreau or a Sam Raimi (he directed the Spider-Man flicks) decides that Marvel is no longer paying them what they're worth and jumps ship, the stock could easily see an overreaction sell-off.

Steven Spielberg wants to reboot the DreamWorks brand, according to this article. He's not happy being at Viacom's (NYSE: VIA) Paramount and not having full ownership of his films. What he wants to do now is see if he can summon $1 billion in financing to catalyze this new phase in his life.

Of course, the phrase "see if he can" is probably not the most accurate one to use when talking about Spielberg. When it comes to Hollywood, his word is scripture, and if he asks for financing, he'll have more takers than he can handle. After raising his billion bucks, Spielberg needs to decide which studio will be a perfect home for his new celluloid ambitions. Although the article states that there is a possibility he can land anywhere, to me, there's no ambiguity whatsoever.

Spielberg will end up at General Electric's (NYSE: GE) Universal (if I could be as sure about the price of oil as I am about Spielberg and Universal, I'd be a rich, rich man). He and his Amblin shingle have had a long relationship with Universal, and simply put, that's where he wants to be. It's funny to consider Disney (NYSE: DIS) and News Corp. (NYSE: NWS) as potential new homes for DreamWorks. Disney definitely wouldn't want him since the Mouse is being very conservative in terms of film making, and although News Corp. would love to overpay for him (I think News Corp. enjoys overpaying for things at times), I just don't see Spielberg going to Fox.

Warner Music Group (NYSE: WMG) has asked CBS Corporation's (NYSE: CBS) free on-demand music streaming service Last.fm to remove the label's music from the site "in an apparent dispute over compensation rates." Billboard reports that CBS is "currently negotiating a new agreement with Warner Music Group and are working hard to built the most comprehensive music service on the Web." Music from Universal Music Group, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, EMI Group, and various independent labels remains on Last.fm, and the site's Internet radio service still offers songs from WMG artists.

CBS purchased British-based Last.fm a year ago for $280 million, and WMG was the first major label to sign with Last.fm in February 2007. According to Billboard, WMG had continued to keep music with Last.fm "on a month-to-month basis" after the original deal lapsed. Unlike paid subscription-based services, Last.fm and other free services offer consumers music without charge, and are ad-supported. News Corp.'s (NYSE: NWS) MySpace will soon be starting it's own similar service, which will tap into the social networking site's large user base.

Billboard also reports that WMG had grown "disenchanted with Last.fm's compensation rates" after comparing the rates to other services like the forthcoming MySpace Music. In addition, WMG "owns equity stakes in MySpace Music" and "has been frustrated by Last.fm's failure to proceed with its plans to launch a music subscription service." Paid subscription services have been being pushed by the music labels over other sites and stores like Apple Inc.'s (NASDAQ: AAPL) iTunes Store because they offer better profits for the labels. Mobile phone services have started to tap into this very service, offering consumers music and players on new phones developed for that very purpose.

According to this article at The Wall Street Journal, the major networks are trying to get as much of their advertising inventory sold ahead of the fall season. And who is doing the best? Would you believe that General Electric's (NYSE: GE) NBC network is doing pretty good in terms of its ad sales? I know that might be difficult to comprehend, considering the network's ratings erosion. Believe it or not, though, NBC has achieved a record when it comes to upfront ad sales. It apparently is the first network ever to move just about the sum total of its ad inventory during the springtime.

NBC has generated approximately $1.9 billion in upfront revenues. I think this is impressive, especially given the competition of Disney's (NYSE: DIS) ABC, CBS (NYSE: CBS), News Corp.'s (NYSE: NWS) Fox, and The CW, which is a partnership between Time Warner (NYSE: TWX) and CBS. However, there is an interesting detail in the article that goes beyond the headline and does explain NBC's success to a certain degree. The dynamics of the upfront have been affected by a reduction in inventory that will be available once the season gets started. Because of this, these ads, the so-called scatter market, are more expensive. So, ad buyers have a natural incentive to take out as much upfront inventory as possible.

World Wrestling Entertainment's (NYSE: WWE) Vincent Kennedy McMahon wants more viewers for his Monday Night Raw wrestling extravaganza. In fact, he's so keen on growing ratings that he's willing to spend his own money to keep viewers tuned. How much? Try $1 million.

In a terse press release concerning a promotional sweepstakes, WWE says that Raw viewers can register at the company's Web site and then watch for codes during the program beginning next Monday. People will be competing to win a portion of a $1 million giveaway each week for some unspecified time period. Now, before you think me naive, I made sure to see if this was legitimate, and from the looks of things it is. According to this AP article, McMahon will really be doing this. According to other reports, the June 9 Raw will reveal the details of the promotion. The $1 million will come from McMahon's own fortune (again, from what I understand, this is real).

There's no question as to why this is being done. WWE wants eyeballs. Ratings have been challenged as of late, according to that AP piece. I think giving away $1 million is exciting, and as far as a marketing campaign goes, it should boost ratings. Only problem is, I'd have to imagine that long-term shareholders aren't happy that this kind of gimmick has to be employed. Is wrestling becoming boring to people? Are they in need of other reasons to watch? Well, the answer would seem to be a resounding "yes."

News Corp.'s (NYSE: NWS) Fox network recently settled a snag with the talent behind The Simpsons. According to The Hollywood Reporter, fresh deals were struck that will keep the show on for a 20th season. That's pretty darn long to be on television, and it's a testament to the iconic quality that the animated series possesses.

Negotiations reportedly went on for months. In fact, next season will only see 20 episodes instead of 22 (they better still do a Halloween episode!). Some of the talent will be receiving $400,000 per show, representing a 33% raise (the cast actually wanted more than that). The Reporter article did not say who was getting what. I have to ask the following question: considering how long the show has been on, and considering that media companies are trying to discourage rampant increases in above-the-line costs (at least, that's what they should be doing, as far as I'm concerned), should News Corp. execs have demanded that Fox just end the negotiations and refuse to give in to a 33% raise?

I've got to be honest, a big part of me says "yes." However, there is incentive to keep The Simpsons on the air. Last summer, a movie version of the long-running show made a successful leap to the silver screen. The film grossed over $180 million at domestic theaters, and its worldwide total stands at more than $525 million, according to Boxofficemojo.

Fortune's Devin Leonard writes about the changes that have come at the Wall Street Journal following its acquisition by News Corp. (NYSE: NWS) and concludes that Rupert Murdoch has failed to live up to his promise to maintain editorial independence at the paper.

After pushing out Marcus Brauchli as managing editor, he installed Robert Thomson at the helm -- an Australian who had previously sat at the helm of News Corp.'s The Times, a London newspaper.

There's nothing too shocking here. Gary Weiss and many others had predicted all along that, promises to the contrary aside, Murdoch would find a way to do what he wanted once he won his prize.

Leonard concludes that "Murdoch must be pleased. The Bancrofts probably feel differently. But it's too late for them to complain now. If they didn't want Murdoch to have his way, they never should have parted with Dow Jones."

The problem is that, as a public company with a fiduciary responsibility to deliver returns to shareholders, Dow Jones, ethically and maybe legally too, had to sell given that Murdoch's offer was such a strong one. The only way to avoid putting profits over journalistic integrity is to be a private company.

It's pretty rare that a victory in a $230 million lawsuit is only a moral victory, but Myspace, which is owned by News Corp. (NYSE: NWS), has won just such a case.

The company sued Sanford Wallace and Walter Rines for spamming the social networking site's users with phishing schemes and links to websites offering merchandise for sale or paid advertising. A federal judge in Los Angeles ruled in favor of MySpace after the con-men failed to show up for a hearing.

Why are the damages so high? CAN-SPAM, a 2003 law, entitled providers to $100 in damages for every spam message sent -- and the amount triples when the spam is sent "willfully and knowingly."

Perhaps this will send a message to would-be spammers that they shouldn't mess with MySpace. But the spammers are nowhere to be found, and it's hard to imagine that they have anything like $230 million to pay the judgment, or even the $4.7 million in attorneys fees that the judge awarded MySpace.