The New York Times has an interesting article Remaking The Journal (free registration required) that hints at possible changes to the The Wall Street Journal. As a subscriber to the Wall Street Journal, I was saddened when it got taken over News Corporation (NWS), because I fear it will suffer the same fate at CNN. When Ted Turner ran CNN, it was edgy and interesting. Along came AOL with its remaking of CNN and removing the edge. While it might have enjoyed a wider audience, it also became less informative and interesting to watch. I fear the same thing happening to the Wall Street Journal.
Mr. Murdoch has said that he wanted The Journal to step up its coverage of politics and national and international affairs, making it a more direct competitor to The New York Times. He has lobbied for more hard news and more succinct articles — a marked shift in tone for a newspaper whose signatures include long, often quirky news features that start on the front page.
There has even been talk of a front page with articles short enough to start and end there rather than continuing on inside pages, and of taking the words “Wall Street” out of the paper’s name to give it broader appeal, according to people who have been briefed on the matter. Both ideas were quickly dismissed, but the fact that they were raised even semiseriously shows how unconstrained by tradition the new owner is, these people said.
...
None of that should be surprising from Mr. Murdoch, who is known for being sure of what he wants to do with each of his many properties — often molding them to reflect his own views and wasting no time in doing it. His habit of detailed, personal control contrasts starkly with decades of hands-off ownership by the Bancroft family, which viewed almost any involvement as unethical meddling.
I, for one, often enjoy the front page, long quirky articles. I find those articles to be a refreshing break from the constant barrage of facts, figures, and strong opinions. Moving along to the free with advertising versus subscription based model, I favor the latter. I do not want to be constantly bombarded with advertisements that I need to move out of my way to read an article. I prefer a clean, uncluttered look. In my view, the online WSJ has a balanced approach now with advertising and content. One partial solution that I do like is Barry Ritholtz's solution of allowing the archives to flow freely. In essence, paid subscribers receive current content, while all are allowed to read older content supported by advertisements.
Given that I do not support some of the initiatives outlined in the New York Times article, does that mean I was content with the status quo? No, not at all. I recognize that the news media is a business. Thus, it must be profitable. The Dow Jones with its Wall Street Journal had been languishing for too long—in fact, that is the reason why the Bancroft family accepted Murdoch's offer. So change was inevitable, just a question of what and when. Myself, I would have preferred making the newspaper more informative and more insightful. I would have preferred to see more in depth articles. I am not sure how to translate those broad generic sweeping generalizations to something concrete. And perhaps that was the problem—those running the Wall Street Journal did not know how to make the appropriate changes either. So now we will have to sit and wait for Rupert Murdoch to make his changes.
Calgary model Judith Aldama is featured in the photograph above, which is hosted at Flickr. If you click on the picture of Judith, you will be taken to where you can view a larger version and see even more pictures of her.
Leave a comment