April 22, 2008
A rapid resignation at the Wall Street Journal
Well, that did not take long. The resignation of Marcus Brauchli as managing editor of the Wall Street Journal just 11 months after taking up the post and four months after Rupert Murdoch’s acquisition of Dow Jones occurred faster than almost anyone expected.
Despite Mr Murdoch’s pledge not to interfere in editorial matters, and the creation of a special committee to ensure that Mr Brauchli was not told what to do by the paper’s new owner, it never seemed entirely plausible that Mr Murdoch would remain editorially detached.
His influence - transmuted through Robert Thomson, the former US managing editor of the FT who is now publisher of the Journal - is evident in the paper’s extra political coverage and the expansion of its opinion pages.
My sense is that Journal staff are uncomfortable about Mr Murdoch’s enthusiasm for taking on the New York Times by broadening the political coverage. Even if it does the job well, it will inevitably lose some focus.
One question is how much of a fuss the committee will kick up over Mr Brauchli’s rapid departure. Since he has resigned, the committee has no obvious grounds to interfere but its members are likely to feel uncomfortable if they do not at least make a statement.
They will not want to meet the fate of the independent directors of the Times of London, who did not protest when Harry Evans resigned as editor in 1982 after falling out with Mr Murdoch. They are still there but have not been taken very seriously since then.
It promises to be quite a drama in the world of US newspapers and of financial publications, including this one.
I was hoping to write Murdoch a letter asking him to can the opinion writers of the WSJ because they are nasty, contrary, out-of-touch with their readership, trite and wrong-headed. Guess I won’t have much luck there. Long live the FT!
New York
Posted by: matvox | April 22nd, 2008 at 1:48 pm | Report this commentSince the initial bid by Mr. Murdoch, the decline of the Wall Street Journal has been impressive. Transforming the journal of record to the best news money can buy in under a year is quite a feat. The news published (ex. The Citigroup articles published since October ‘07) often is the news the contacts of the paper want to happen - rather than the actual outcomes. The opinions section has gone from grounded conservative economics to pushing a political agenda. Mr. Murdoch is demonstrating how to put the K back in quality. Which begs the question, why is the New York Times running scared?
Posted by: Matt | April 22nd, 2008 at 6:51 pm | Report this commentI have been wary of the changes that have occurred at the WSJ since its acquisition by News Corp. I am not quite as negative as Matt who writes a note above. On the other hand, I almost never read the opinion pieces which traditionally have been about as right-wing as they can be even without Mr. Murdoch’s ownership.
I find the rotating photographs and heightened graphics unpleasantly disconcerting - a significant negative rather than positive. The feature articles seem to be shorter and less quirky than earlier, but that is only an impression that I have - no scientific testing whether there is truth to it. I have a particular interest in healthcare issues and particularly like the HealthBlog - a feature that was created roughly a year ago. It is well-done, covers a range of topics and is quite informative.
I am a reader of the NYTimes as well as the FT, but have generally preferred the writing and style of reporting of the WSJ, although each is publication is excellent and distinctive. I find the columns in the FT particularly well-written and informative.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | April 23rd, 2008 at 2:21 am | Report this commentFrom time to time I read the Friday/Saturday edition of the WSJ EUROPE. There are often items of news in it on the business and economics fronts which I have not heard or read in the German or French media, and that’s the main reason I look at it.
On the debit side: I hate the pages full of ads of property FOR SALE IN THE USA… The Weekend Supplement is really quaint: redolent of another age - the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s etc? There’s whole page on golf and most of another one on cocktails - only a page on bridge is missing. WHY?
The shiny, tiny little (once a month?) magazine is pathetic and vacuous.
What type of readership is the WSJ EUROPE aimed at? Americans in Europe or Europeans who speak English and want to read a US paper?
Posted by: J.J. | April 23rd, 2008 at 4:45 pm | Report this commentThe WSJ can’t compete with the FT because of a number of reasons. The mess created in the WSJ has a long history. The main issue is an ongoing conflict of interests at senior management level, which led to the collapse of the WSJ’s global expansion strategy. The change to the editorial board has to be introduced to fix the problem.
Posted by: Viktor O. Ledenyov | April 23rd, 2008 at 4:54 pm | Report this comment[…] note with sadness the subtle decline of the Wall Street Journal. It’s very sad for me, since I once dreamed of working there, but […]
Posted by: American Madness » Blog Archive » Small Street Journal | May 14th, 2008 at 4:36 pm | Report this comment