The Transformation of The Wall Street Journal: Now With Less Wall Street

Posted by John Carney, May 21, 2008, 10:57am

Wall Street Journal A1.JPG

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.

4Recommend this! 47Comments
Posted in: Business Media, News Corp, Rupert Murdoch, Wall Street Journal

Comments

Posted by Master of None, May 21, 2008 11:06AM

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.

Posted by guest, May 21, 2008 11:10AM

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.

Posted by guest, May 21, 2008 11:17AM

No question WSJ (and WSJ.com) is moving away from business/markets coverage.

Posted by Johnny, May 21, 2008 11:18AM

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...

Posted by Master of None, May 21, 2008 11:19AM

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)

Posted by guest, May 21, 2008 11:27AM

i wonder if they'll try to change the name too at some point.

Posted by AJ, May 21, 2008 11:28AM

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..

Posted by Johnny, May 21, 2008 11:28AM

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...

Posted by guest, May 21, 2008 11:30AM

The middle column has always been some goofy thing- that's nothing new.

Posted by guest, May 21, 2008 11:39AM

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.

Posted by guest, May 21, 2008 11:40AM

Why have a Wall Street Journal if it is not about...Wall Street?

Posted by guest, May 21, 2008 11:41AM

He is who we thought he was.

Posted by guest, May 21, 2008 11:47AM

He is who we thought he was.

Posted by diablo, May 21, 2008 11:50AM

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.

Posted by guest, May 21, 2008 11:58AM

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.

Posted by guest, May 21, 2008 12:00PM

why is that hard? They already have the content for the most part. Printing and distribution can;t be THAT hard...

Posted by guest, May 21, 2008 12:03PM

I predict the following "retro-evolution":

WSJ => NY Post => UK Sun => The Onion.

Posted by guest, May 21, 2008 12:46PM

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.

Posted by guest, May 21, 2008 12:47PM

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.

Posted by guest, May 21, 2008 12:48PM

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.

Posted by guest, May 21, 2008 1:15PM

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...

Posted by guest, May 21, 2008 1:15PM

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.

Posted by guest, May 21, 2008 1:25PM

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.

Posted by Anal_yst, May 21, 2008 1:28PM

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)

Posted by guest, May 21, 2008 1:47PM

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...

Posted by guest, May 21, 2008 1:56PM

@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.

Posted by guest, May 21, 2008 2:03PM

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."

Posted by guest, May 21, 2008 2:20PM

2:03 should open with "I always liked those..."

Posted by MGR, May 21, 2008 3:48PM

@1:15 I agree, the tri-fold was perfect.

Posted by counterclockwise, May 21, 2008 4:01PM

The 248 point drop in the Dow today somehow seems more interesting than the rest of the news ...

Posted by Janocha, May 21, 2008 4:15PM

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.

Posted by Janocha, May 21, 2008 4:16PM

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.

Posted by Janocha, May 21, 2008 4:17PM

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.

Posted by guest, May 21, 2008 4:52PM

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?

Posted by guest, May 21, 2008 5:14PM

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.

Posted by guest, May 21, 2008 7:03PM

WSJ = Crap

Posted by guest, May 21, 2008 7:03PM

WSJ = Crap

Posted by guest, May 21, 2008 10:32PM

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.

Posted by guest, May 21, 2008 11:56PM

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.

Posted by guest, May 22, 2008 8:45AM

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.

Posted by guest, May 22, 2008 8:54AM

wsj should have an erotic section like craigs list. I'd read it then, otherwise, forget it!

Posted by guest, May 23, 2008 10:08AM

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.

Posted by Janocha, May 23, 2008 11:35AM

http://online.wsj.com/page/2_1154.html?mod=2_1154

Thant should link you to the Hedge Funds page.

Posted by Janocha, May 23, 2008 11:36AM

http://online.wsj.com/page/2_1154.html?mod=2_1154

This should link you to the Hedge Funds page.

Posted by guest, May 23, 2008 3:30PM

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.

Posted by guest, May 27, 2008 10:22AM

Three words: Investors Business Daily. The new WSJ.

Posted by Headless Horseman, May 28, 2008 1:21PM

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?

Post Your Comment