Murdoch Chipping Away at 'WSJ' Independence?

No one will be surprised when Rupert Murdoch starts meddling with the editorial machinery of The Wall Street Journal, despite a formal agreement to preserve its independence. But is he doing it already?

The editorial agreement reached prior to News Corp.'s acquisition of Dow Jones stipulated that the Journal's managing editor, Marcus Brauchli, would continue to report to the publisher. But when Murdoch installed Robert Thomson, heretofore editor of the Times of London, as publisher earlier this month, he changed the definition of the job. Unlike his predecessor, Gordon Crovitz, Thomson will have no duties to speak of on the paper's business side; his job is strictly editorial.

That raises the question of whether the creation of what is, in effect, a new editorial post above Brauchli's subverts a pact meant to reinforce the primacy of the Journal's managing editor in news decisions.

"I don't think it's consistent with the spirit of the agreement," says Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota. "I can't point to a provision where they're in violation of the terms, as spelled out in black and white. But whether they're in violation of the spirit is a fair question."

"Let me put it this way," Kirtley adds. "I think the agreement was drafted in such a way that it left open a lot of room for maneuvering."

Indeed, because of that room, it's easy to make the case that there's nothing untoward about News Corp.'s actions. Tom Bray, chairman of the five-person committee charged with overseeing compliance of the agreement, notes that it explicitly delineates the authority of the managing editor and editorial page editor but does not do so for the publisher. A change in the publisher's duties, therefore, lies outside the agreement's purview.

Moreover, says Bray, there's nothing new about the publisher having ultimate oversight of editorial matters. "The publisher has always been in the editorial line," he says.

But for a newspaper publisher to have only editorial duties is highly unusual, says Los Angeles Times media critic Tim Rutten. "There is no analogous situation in American newspapers. It's unique," he says. Without knowing specifically what Thomson's job will entail, he adds, "it looks to me like what they're creating is an executive editor." And that is surely not what Dow Jone's previous owners, the Bancroft family, had in mind when they negotiated the independence agreement with News Corp.

Byron Calame, a longtime Journal editor and former New York Times ombudman, takes the narrow view. "If the agreement says [Brauchli]'s to report to the publisher and he's reporting to the publisher, on the face of it, that would seem to be to the letter of the agreement," he says.

And a Journal spokesman insists the redefinition of the publisher's role will have no effect on the scope of Brauchli's authority, or that of the editorial page editor, Paul Gigot. "The power to hire and remove subordinates is at the discretion of the editors, who are also responsible for the content of the paper," he says.

But Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, suggests Brauchli and Gigot would do well not to get too comfortable with their power. "To tell you the truth, I think it really doesn't matter what these agreements say. The owners is the owner, and Rupert Murdoch is known as a very active owner."

Rutten agrees. "Did anyone really expect Rupert Murdoch to honor the specifics of that agreement? If he did, it'd certainly be out of character."

Add Your Comment

Report Abuse

Archive

Categories

Links