Murdoch's 'Journal': Some Like It Bought

The people have spoken, and they disagree.

Earlier this week, we asked whether Portfolio readers think there's been a change in The Wall Street Journal's quality -- either for better or worse -- since Rupert Murdoch took control of the paper in December.

Of the nearly 300 who responded, a plurality of 44 percent think the paper has fallen off, while 29 percent disagreed, saying they think it has improved since the takeover. And a solid quarter of poll-takers punted, insisting there's no clear difference between then and now.

That mix of reactions was roughly mirrored in my informal poll of media critics who keep close tabs on the Journal's every move. Chris Roush, director of the Carolina Business News Initiative at the University of North Carolina's School of Journalism and Mass Communication, takes the most popular view. "What's happened to the Journal is that it's entered the world of journalism where its news is more a commodity," he says. "Before, the Journal's journalism was all about exclusivity.

"The quirky feature stories on the front page have been relegated to the bottom of the page* or no longer appear. The in-depth analysis of companies seems to be missing as well. I like to sink my teeth into a 30-inch profile of a CEO or a company, and yet, I'm not finding those stories as much as I used to. Instead, I'm finding the stories that I can get anywhere else, including online for free."

But Sylvia Nasar, co-director of Columbia University's business journalism program, sees it entirely differently. "I love the Journal even more these days and read it before anything else every morning. The changes don't seem dramatic to me, however. The paper just seems... sharper. Perhaps also more appealing to women. The sub-prime and credit crunch coverage has been excellent. Ditto for coverage of Latin America, the Democratic primaries and the media."

Ad Age media critic Simon Dumenco has also been digging the Journal lately, although he's not sure who deserves the credit. "It could be that 'the good stuff' is just coming into greater relief lately because the end of primary season has freed up Page One. But it could also be that Robert Thomson actually knows what the hell he's doing -- and Rupert Murdoch does too, in having put Thomson in charge."

New Yorker writer Ken Auletta, who won a Mirror Award this week for his coverage of Murdoch's courtship of Dow Jones, says it's too early for judgment. "Some things are better," he says. "That three-part series they did on Bear Stearns was a fabulous piece of work, and certainly was not a reflection of shorter stories or fewer editors."

But, he adds, "in some ways you wonder. When you switch to more heavily international news, more heavily political news, is there a danger you'll alienate your core business constituency?"

And Dean Starkman, who has written hard-hitting columns (including this one) about the Journal's loss of independence for the Columbia Journalism Review, cautions against comparing the new Journal to the paper at its loftiest peaks of years past rather than to the way it was in 2007. Immediately prior to the takeover, he says, "I thought the paper was sort of at a low ebb, journalistically -- with some massive exceptions," he says. "I don't think the changes that are visible are especially good, but it hasn't fallen off a cliff."

-----
*Update: A Journal spokesman calls the criticism that the quirky features, or "A-heds," as they're called at the paper, have been moved down the page "factually incorrect." Historically, he says, the vast majority of A-heds have appeared below the fold.

Add Your Comment

Report Abuse

Archive

Categories

Links