The proposal has been widely described as primarily defensive, to blunt competition from News Corporation, but analysts say it has strategic value on its own  although perhaps not enough to justify anything like the $5 billion News Corporation has offered.

“I think it’s great strategically, with a lot of opportunities for consolidation,” said Larry Grimes, president of W. B. Grimes & Company, media industry investment bankers. “Whether they can reach an agreement to make it work and justify a price that would make it happen, that’s a very different question.”

Justifying such a price is not the same issue for Mr. Murdoch, a shrewd businessman whose motivations sometimes go beyond profit to include prestige and political influence. He often pours money into the businesses he buys, and he is willing to let some of them, like The New York Post, lose a lot of money, year after year.

In contrast, G.E. and Jeffrey R. Immelt, its chairman and chief executive, have a reputation for wielding the sharpest of pencils, aggressively hunting for savings, taking a hard, unsentimental look at any deal, and walking away if they are not confident it is a serious moneymaker.

Pearson and its chief executive, Marjorie Scardino, are often described as being more willing to pay premium prices for what they buy, though they have not made any major acquisitions recently.

The Journal is the leading finance-oriented newspaper in the United States and The Financial Times holds that distinction in Europe, and uniting them would offer obvious areas for consolidation, like merging or shrinking competing bureaus in many cities.

But analysts say the possible advantages go much further: The Journal could largely retreat from Europe and The Financial Times could do the same in North America, they could consolidate printing operations and offer joint deals to advertisers. Similar arrangements could be made between The Economist, half-owned by Pearson, and Barron’s, owned by Dow Jones.