The New Wall Street Journal: Still Good for You, But With 20% More Flavor

The inevitable NYT curtain-raiser from Richard Perez-Pena on the formal transfer of control of the Wall Street Journal to Rupert Murdoch's News Corp scratches at the surface of a fact that will become completely obvious less than six weeks from now -- the Journal is about to become a much better read.

Jack Flack came to that same conclusion back on the morning after Halloween when commenting on the Journal's happy skinning of Bear Stearns boss Jimmy Cayne. The Cayne story manifested a genuine departure for what may well be the world's most reputable newspaper. It broke a long-standing, unspoken, Steiger-enforced practice that the Journal would not print accusations from unattributed sources if the accused party directly denied them.

For several days afterward, Jack Flack heard from a surprisingly large number of Journal folks. With one big exception, they all essentially said the same four things.

1. The Cayne story did indeed cross a new line, but there was great conviction in the assertions. There was also a ton of dirt that didn't make the story, but that probably would have elsewhere.

2. Other shifts were also occurring, mostly with people/positions.

3. Such shifts were not coming directly from Murdoch or his people, but instead from Journal stalwarts who were mostly just trying to make the paper better, but also working to make sure they would not be the ones who needed to be fixed by the new owners.

4. Becoming a better read was probably going to be a good thing.

Jack Flack predicts things will move quickly. Relative to other news organizations, the Journal runs on an editor-driven, team-first/me-second culture that is fully capable of executing a Student-Body-Right any USC tailback would be proud to run behind. Also, Journal staffers, who have long complained of the notoriously grinding "thoroughness" of the editing process, will likely be energized by the coming emphasis on speed and decisiveness, not to mention seeing fewer of their best bits of reporting left on the editing room floor.

The net effect is that the Journal will indeed become a better read, with juicier, timelier stories that are framed more dramatically. Yes, the editing will not be nearly as conservative, and thus the number of occasional embarrassments will increase, but not to any degree that will sufficiently diminish the paper's credibility.

The Times story reported two supposedly radical changes under consideration.

"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."

Jack Flack predicts both of those will still happen sooner than later. The "jump" makes no sense in an increasingly hyper-text world. And as the Journal expands its editorial focus and geographic footprint, the limitations of the words "Wall Street" will become increasingly obvious. In steady increments, look for "Journal" to keep getting bigger and "Wall Street" to keep getting smaller.

The idea of dropping "Wall Street" from the name prompts Jack Flack to recommend a visit to a great example of completely spotty clairvoyance. Jack Flack's original Rescue Memo back in September went to Rupert on the subject of the Journal. The recommendations include both big hits and big misses, with much of the story still to play out.