Here’s a little inside baseball during a slow vacation week in August:
Two years ago, I suggested the changes that Rupert Murdoch was making to our beloved Wall Street Journal created an opening for both the NYT and the FT.
To borrow the words of the Columbia Journalism Review, the Murdoch approach of: “de-Journalizing the Journal, sexing up headlines, cutting story length, diluting depth, adding more stock photos and commodity news, going to straight-news ledes, replacing much of the masthead with non-WSJers, and heading generally to the more slap-dash, once-over-lightly British model” created an opening for others. I made the following suggestions:
“The coverage looks to becoming less business and money oriented, and more of a general interest paper "” kinda like what the Washington Post and the New York Times already do.
In trying to extend the WSJ's reach, Murdoch has left open its flank. That creates the opportunity for shrewd operators to expand their Business news. Hence, the opportunity for would be Journal's competitors, and in particular, the NYT, to go after the Journal's audience. The business goal would be to capture a significant percentage of the Journal's expensed subscriptions.”
Apparently, I am not the only one who saw the problems with the Journals “Less Wall Street” approach. CJR is reporting that several senior Journal reporters who covered Wall Street for the WSJ have departed for the Times:
Susanne Craig, one of The Wall Street Journal's star Wall Street reporters, is moving to The New York Times, a boost for the Times and the latest blow to the Journal's coverage of that core beat.
Craig told The Audit she's "looking forward to a new challenge."
Craig's departure follows that of Peter Lattman, another Journal staffer who also went to the Times, and earlier, that of her former partner in Wall Street coverage, Kate Kelly, who left for CNBC.
Fascinating stuff.
One would think that if your name was the The Wall Street Journal, your emphasis would be Wall Street related news. Apparently, that view seems not to be the case, and a few reporters are voting with their feet.
Do not get me wrong — 3 reporters does not make a mass exodus. But its a safe bet that there will be future stars leaving the Journal for the Times, FT, Economist, and elsewhere.
Now the question remains: Will the NYT follow my advice, and substantially beef up their Business coverage ? Stay tuned . . .
>
Previously: Murdoch's WSJ Changes Creates Opening for NYT, FT (April 24th, 2008)
WSJ Jumps the Shark (January 22nd, 2010)
Sources: Susanne Craig leaving WSJ for the NYT A blow to the Journal Dean Starkman CJR, August 30, 2010http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/susanne_craig_leaving_wsj_for.php
Two Can Play That Game, Rupert The Times has the smarter strategy in the head-to-head with The Wall Street Journal Ryan Chittum CJR, August 30, 2010 http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/two_can_play_that_game_rupert.php
The first indication of change @ WSJ was when they gave voice to that political hack from Texas. What’s next comics? gossip?, maybe even a style column authored by Paris Hilton.
Main resistance to stealing share will be the NYT’s reputation for liberal bias, IMO. Can they set a tone that will allay those concerns in WSJ refugees?
One would hope ultimately that there’s a price to pay for dumbing down. That’s how the free market is supposed to work both for employees and readers/customers, I suppose. At one time, I actually read the WSJ, now I look here to get “The Big Picture”. I do read the nytimes.com but so far not specifically for business.
I know why I’ve switched jobs in the past. You show me a copy of their 1040s from last year and next year, and I’ll tell you a story about change and inspiration.
I know it’s only a quote, but the “British” comment is unfair and incorrect. The British media in general provide much more in-depth coverage and the audince doesn’t expect sound bites. Even the European )London based) edition of CNBC is substantially more detailed than in the US. Remeber that the FT and The Economist are both British.
Of course, the tabloids are the tabloids all over the world and this is where Murdoch (aka The dirty digger) made his money, so they’re close to his heart and influence his approach. He is on record as having said “Nobody ever lost money by under-estimating the intelligence of the ordinary people”. Nice. He now seems to be extending that rationale to the readers of WSJ.
BTW, Murdoch was originally Australian not British. He became a US citizen because of the media ownership restrictions on non=Americans. Aren’t you lucky!!
Philipat –
I believe the wonderful HL Mencken was the originator of that quote – "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."
Kind of hard to stomach paying a subscription fee to the guys who bring us Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, publish with a transparent agenda and then claim everyone else is (horrors!) biased.
Especially when you can highlight any subscriber-only headline, right-click and search for it in Google and get it without the fee – kinda makes you feel like a chump for paying.
No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people … although paying trophy prices in a dying industry might be the right recipe to lose your shirt. Wouldn’t surprise me to see Bloomberg owning the thing in 10 years.
The NY Times is unreadable. I live in the Philly area and find the font, size, and type of lettering for the NY times to be not worth my money. I read whatever I want online for free anyway. Having said that, the WSJ is still a pretty good paper in terms of stuff they cover, the RE section on Wednesdays, and several other must read features. I wish more of these “journalists” would go to the Investors Business Daily, which could use some REAL beefing up on their stories.
Just Rupert being Rupert, doing what he promised not to do, “this time it will be different”, NOT!
Asia and Euroland down a bunch today, NIKKEI down 3.25%. Digesting Gentle Ben’s hollow promises?
Pre Rupert Murdoch: The editors of the WSJ could not explain what "complex financial derivative" meant. Post Rupert Murdoch: They don't see any reason to try.
A journalist actually having job options is news in itself!!
The H. L. Mencken quote was “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public”. Politicians, media types, and Wall Street have proven that true over and over again.
My only beef with the WSJ is the damn NY section. It’s all fashion and movie stars and the hamptons. It is utterly worthless, but at least it takes up less room than the same dreck in the NY Times. I guess I will have to switch to the FT.
If they do that, I might pony up for the Times daily. Right now, I only get the Sunday and hardly read that anymore due to slowly declining quality.
I cancelled my WSJ last year and don’t regret it one bit.
My subscription to the Journal is up for renewal–they want almost $500 for a year! No thanks. Not when I can get the same stuff free over the net. I’ve had a Journal subscription almost continuously since college (25 years). When this one runs out, that’s it.
Exactly Curm. I’ve actually gone back and forth about cancelling my local paper and the Sunday Times so that for the first time in my adult life I’d receive no papers. I hardly read them anymore but almost feel compelled to at least get the local to stay somewhat on top of what is going on around here. Not sure it’s worth the dough anymore though.
Given the observable and known News Corp slant… why would anyone read the WSJ? I stop as soon as he bought it.
Now if Gerald Seib would go to the NYT (a sinking ship, by the way) with his liberal commentary. Bye, bye Gerry.
this is too bad While WSJ suffered a whack job editorial staff and page for years, the reporters and stories have often been first rate.
If you glance at today’s – 8/31/2010 – WSJ’s front page, here’s is what you know about the world:
Islam is converting blond, Western woman Global warming is a crock, it’s supporters liars Congressmen cheat on their expense reports The Clintons trust North Korea Reckless fashionistas endanger their lives and drive up healthcare costs Californians waste municipal funds and are are surfer-obsessed, liberal air heads
…If you manage to get into the paper you’ll find out that:
US gov’t regulators will funk your car George Bush is a military hero/genius The Emmys honoring FOX news irritant Jon Stewart were “Short of Smash”
…And you’re wondering why journalists would leave this fount of “accurate” information.
The first page I turn to when I read the Wall Street Journal is Rupert’s editorial page, which I find more entertaining than Page Six, at Rupert’s New York Post.
@NormanB
Read Full Article »