Perhaps you're as puzzled as I am about one element of CFO.com's account of the Bob Willens analysis of the tax structure used for the Dow Jones-News Corp. deal. Why didn't the Wall Street Journal itself — with its bevy of tax specialists and its seeming commitment to cover every nook and cranny of the battle for its parent company — report on the tax implications for the Dow Jones-controlling Bancroft family?

Willens himself is clueless about why the paper gave no coverage to something as interesting as use of the "National Starch" structure, based on an arrangement used in Unilever's 1978 purchase of National Starch & Chemical.

"I don't know why the WSJ hasn't covered this aspect of the deal, since they've covered just about every other aspect. Maybe the tax situation of the Bancrofts is too sensitive a topic for anyone there to cover," he says in response to a query from CFO.com. But, of course, the Journal did delve into other attempts by Bancroft family members to arrange for sweeter terms for their Class B stock than Dow Jones Class A holders were getting. And the WSJ, among others, pointed out that the final deal did call for certain Bancroft-family fees to be paid.

The Journal spokesman who returned our call seeking comment at first said he would look into the matter, and got back with a statement that the paper doesn't discuss newsgathering decisions. He also noted that former managing editor Paul E. Steiger, who began supervising the paper's day-to-day coverage of the News Corp. offer shortly after retiring as the top news executive, is in China.

Perhaps it's just a case of Bob Willens, a Columbia University professor and tax-and-accounting specialist at Lehman Brothers, being ahead of the press in general — this time including the Journal, and, incidentally, CFO.com.