The announcement last night that key Murdoch aide Robert J. Thomson, who had been charged with selecting the next top editor of The Wall Street Journal , had pulled a Dick Cheney and selected himself, will have many speculating about the future of the Journal.
But why speculate when the evidence is right on the front page of the Wall Street Journal? Today’s front page shows that the worst fears of Journal watchers–turning the Journal into the New York Post or even the Sun–haven’t come to pass. But there does seem to be a shift in focus. Newspapers communicate their image of what is important with their front pages. And the front page story is a prized win for reporters, conveying prestige among colleagues. A few months ago the news desk at the Journal was split between general news and business news, and business news seems to be losing some of its grip on the paper.
Take a look at what’s on the Journal’s front page. Today there are six stories. The top billing is giving to the story of Ted Kennedy’s brain tumor. The two other above the fold stories are about the quake in China and the US military. Below the fold we have a story about doping scandals in the Olympics. Of these, only the military story–they plan to use more alternate fuels–has a solid business angle. The rest are general news stories. Murdoch, who is said to favor more general news more prominently placed in the Journal, must be pleased.
The “What’s News” section continues to lead with business and finance news shorts. For now.
- Posted in:
Business Media
The Transformation of The Wall Street Journal: Now With Less Wall Street
By John Carney — Advertisement —
Comments (52)
Leave a comment
You can log in with your account or comment as a guest below.
- Use the Bloomberg command
NH BLG_DEALBREAKER <GO>
to access Dealbreaker
As I’ve pointed out before, the WSJ is going to shit. They put some ridiculous things on Page 1 (like CNN.com bad). But, to be fair, the ‘military’ article is really about alternative energy.
If going to shit means eliminating well researched and written but long, boring and of questionable relevance articles, then you are correct. Fact is, its evolving into something more useful and interesting. More FT like.
No question WSJ (and WSJ.com) is moving away from business/markets coverage.
Nice catch. It’s almost comical. If they’re going to turn the paper into garbage, maybe they should at least have their own Page 6 equivalent. Just a suggestion…
Recently, Page 1 has featured articles about:
Nude Bicycling (May 19th)
Breeding Fish in Swimming Pools (May 9th)
Male Synchronized Swimming (March 17th)
A Shortage of Sawdust (March 3rd)
A Trend of People Eating Ice (Jan 30th)
Competitive Knitting (Dec 17th)
i wonder if they’ll try to change the name too at some point.
Maybe its just me but I’ve always loved the extremely detailed, random stories in the middle column… I don’t know about this 4 column, above the fold format for the Ted Kennedy story..
Sorry, i’d like to amend my comment. World news and other non-business news is not “garbage”, but that’s not what we get the journal for. Save it for the other publications. You hear that, Murdoch..?? I’m talkin’ to you…
The middle column has always been some goofy thing- that’s nothing new.
The journal is much worse (in my opinion) than it was before Murdoch took over. I buy the WSJ for the financial coverage, not to read daily front page articles on the China earthquake or fifteen articles a day on the primary elections. Also the new editorial page layout is crap.
Why have a Wall Street Journal if it is not about…Wall Street?
He is who we thought he was.
He is who we thought he was.
Yeah, but it takes the BBC to cover this first:
Ballmer heckled and thrown eggs at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7412417.stm
Soon to P. 1 of the WSJ.
It’s not just the front page. The whole first section is turning into USA Today. Bloomberg has been investing more in reporting. They could make a run on the WSJ online, but it’s hard to see them putting out a paper.
why is that hard? They already have the content for the most part. Printing and distribution can;t be THAT hard…
I predict the following “retro-evolution”:
WSJ => NY Post => UK Sun => The Onion.
It’s gotten to the point where I skip most articles in the first section. It used to be solid business news and analysis. Now the first section is almost entirely international government/politics. That’s not why I subscribe to the WSJ.
I don’t need to pay for the WSJ to learn about Sen. Kennedy’s diagnosis from 18 hours earlier. I learned nothing new from the cover story article.
11:58, they’re investing in business reporting. The pre-Murdoch WSJ still had way more general new coverage than Bloomberg ever will. It’d be hard for them to fill a whole paper, and many people wouldn’t buy a 40-page business section. The company’s not too into low tech either.
It’s gotten to the point where I skip most articles in the first section. It used to be solid business news and analysis. Now the first section is almost entirely international government/politics. That’s not why I subscribe to the WSJ.
I don’t need to pay for the WSJ to learn about Sen. Kennedy’s diagnosis from 18 hours earlier. I learned nothing new from the cover story article.
the trouble all began when the journal “slimmed” down its size…no longer can you fold the paper in thirds on the train without creasing the middle columns…
I agree with 2x guest’s comments @ 12:48 & 12:46. In BM days (before Murdoch) Kennedy’s tumor would have rated a sentence or two, without a follow-up story, in the far left hand column. We all know the details. Even if a longer piece seemed appropriate, today’s was just too much – not what we had come to expect on the front page of the WSJ. But this may be a harbinger (like that?) of what we should expect. Too bad if that is the case.
It’s pretty simple: was WSJ a brand or a newspaper for mostly business news? Does changing the mix of news damage the brand? Will it make more money? Any cancellations yet? Any switching to another brand or business paper? I guess time will tell.
BTW Dealbreaker! Why not coverage of the Balmer egg’ing??? CNBC was ALL over that circa 7am this morning! (see diablo’s post @ 11:50)
I too have noticed the diluted business coverage since Murdoch’s takeover…I am relying more and more on the FT for serious business coverage these days…even though it is Eurocentric, at least it is hitting most of the important topics of the day…
@11:58 Some think that Bloomberg (both the company and the individual) is a natural for making a run at the NY Times. Wresting control from the family like Murdoch did with the Bancrofts, except without the acrimony.
I always those long, investigative “column four” articles fairly interesting, and they generally had some tie-in to a current economic, financial, or political situation. Now we have nudity in Brattleboro (which the Boston Globe already ran about a year ago) and stray dogs riding the subway in Moscow.
I’m going to type that again.
The Wall Street Journal had a front page article about stray dogs riding the subway in Moscow.
I believe that’s what’s known as “jumping the shark.”
2:03 should open with “I always liked those…”
@1:15 I agree, the tri-fold was perfect.
The 248 point drop in the Dow today somehow seems more interesting than the rest of the news …
There was a big picture of Kennedy of the front page of the Financial Times today. (Eurocentric?)
4:11pm 5/21
The top four articles on “What’s News” WSJ.com
1. Oil, Fed Drive Stocks Down
2. Fed Signals Rate Cuts Are Done
3. AMR to Add Bag Fee, Cut Flights
4. World Bank Struggles to Fight Graft
More content doesn’t equate to less business content.
There was a big picture of Kennedy of the front page of the Financial Times today. (Eurocentric?)
4:11pm 5/21
The top four articles on “What’s News” WSJ.com
1. Oil, Fed Drive Stocks Down
2. Fed Signals Rate Cuts Are Done
3. AMR to Add Bag Fee, Cut Flights
4. World Bank Struggles to Fight Graft
More content doesn’t equate to less business content.
There was a big picture of Kennedy of the front page of the Financial Times today. (Eurocentric?)
4:11pm 5/21
The top four articles on “What’s News” WSJ.com
1. Oil, Fed Drive Stocks Down
2. Fed Signals Rate Cuts Are Done
3. AMR to Add Bag Fee, Cut Flights
4. World Bank Struggles to Fight Graft
More content doesn’t equate to less business content.
The Wall Street Journal had a front page article about stray dogs riding the subway in Moscow.
I believe that’s what’s known as “jumping the shark.”
I call that punching yourself in the balls with a fork.
If Murdoch is going to keep the website business oriented while switching the focus of the print version in order to go after the NYT I think he’s asking for trouble. How many of the WSJ.com viewers are there because they subscribe to the print version, and how many will leave if they decide to subscribe to a more business oriented paper?
I only have the web subscription.
Really I am planning to move to FT subscription, I have other sources for politics and general interest stories.
WSJ = Crap
WSJ = Crap
When one thinks of a newspaper named The Wall Street Journal one thinks of news related to business, economics, finance, investing and yes Wall Street. One does not think of an entire section dedicated to general news that is already 12 to 24 hours old by the time it hits the news stands. The Journal needs to decide if it is going to focus on business related topics or become a NYT, Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune or (horrors) a USA Today. If so, then, Murdoch, you might as well change the name to The Wasted Street Journal. I have been a sub since the earlier 1980s and throughly enjoyed the Journals stories which you could get no where else. Now the paper is just like any other paper in the country and provides no value for the premium price. I will give a month to see if you revert back to pre-murdoch content. If not, I will no longer be a customer.
I find myself looking for the business articles to continue, only to find I’m at the end, too soon.
The editorials are more feisty and entertaining.
I’ve received 4 renewal notices for 199, but I’m going to let it run out and see how low they’ll go when they come begging.
The changes to the WSJ’s business coverage are lamentable and, hopefully, short-lived. It would be good if Murdoch were change the WSJ’s editorial position on Russian oligarchs, and put an end to the WSJ-perpetuated myth that Fridman, Aven and others of their ilk are the last defenders of democracy and free enterprise in Russia.
wsj should have an erotic section like craigs list. I’d read it then, otherwise, forget it!
I only read online version which is still primarily business but what happened to hedge fund section under markets? Seems like a major part of financial section is gone.
http://online.wsj.com/page/2_1154.html?mod=2_1154
Thant should link you to the Hedge Funds page.
http://online.wsj.com/page/2_1154.html?mod=2_1154
This should link you to the Hedge Funds page.
Financial Times blows WSJ out of the water in terms of depth of coverage, international focus, and number of stories. Why anyone would choose the Journal over the FT is beyond me.
Three words: Investors Business Daily. The new WSJ.
Used to be that the WSJ and the Economist were a great combination for focused business journalism and a concise, well-written coverage of politics and current events, respectively.
Plus the WSJ leaned right while the Economist openly discloses its leftward tendencies. The journal tended to focus on domestic stories while the Economist was internationally balanced
The problem with the Financial Times is that in addition to the redundancy of theie international coverage (relative to the Economist), many of the stories sound like they were written by Hillary Clinton’s campaign staff.
Investor’s Business Daily reads to much like one of those scam subscription newsletters. Anybody got a better suggestion with which to replace my WSJ?
print all the DB articles daily.just make sure they’re not in color. and on thin paper. use both sides if possible, a-la Citi
NCAA BASKETBALL UPSETS FOR 2010-2011 and the STOCK SYMBOL THEY REPRESENT:
1. COASTAL CAROLINA(SYMBOL RHT) 78-LSU(XOM) 69 2.WINTHROP(SYMBOL PGR)83-WAKE FOREST(SYMBOL KKD)74 (3.) HAMPTON(SYMBOL GD)51-BOSTON(SYMBOL ALR) 50
(4.) GEORGE WASHINGTON(SYMBOL HAR)58-NEVADA(SYMBOL CZR)56
(5.)NORFOLK ST.(SYMBOL GD)70-C.ARKANSAS(SYMBOL WMT) 69 (6.) BETHUME COOKMAN(SYMBOL CTO)69-WEBBER(SYMBOL XOM)58
(7.) N.C. CENTRAL UNI.(SYMBOL MFBP)43-PRESBYTERIAN(SYMBOL STJ)38 (8.) FLORIDA ATLANTIC(SYMBOL PUSH) 61-MISSIPPI ST.(SYMBOL XOM)59
WALTER WEBB
NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL UNIVERSITY ALUMNI in DURHAM NORTH CAROLINA
[...] THE BAD The Wall Street Journal (NY) Too much black black text. A boxy, vertical design. All stories are given equal importance with size and typography. Without reading the stories' contexts, I do not know to which story the picture belongs. [...]
check this link, chanel 2011 for more
purchase replicaslouisvuitton.jimdo.com/ for gift