![]() ![]() ![]() She commands a staff of 150 as chief news strategist and chief product and technology officer. She was given a sweeping mandate, marking her as a potential future leader of the paper. While that inoculated The Journal against the ravages wrought by an array of unlikely newcomers, from Craigslist to Facebook, it also kept the paper from innovating further. At the time, most other publications, including The New York Times, bought into the mantra that “information wants to be free” and ended up paying dearly for what turned out to be a misguided business strategy.Īs thousands of papers across the country folded, The Journal, with its nearly 1,300-person news staff, made money, thanks to its prescient digital strategy. It was one of the few news organizations to charge readers for online access starting in 1996, during the days of dial-up internet. The Journal got digital publishing right before anyone else. That argument has yet to convince executives in the top ranks of the company. The Journal of the future, they say, must pay more attention to social media trends and cover racial disparities in health care, for example, as aggressively as it pursues corporate mergers. Murdoch’s first read of the day, must move away from subjects of interest to established business leaders and widen its scope if it wants to succeed in the years to come. Now a special innovation team and a group of nearly 300 newsroom employees are pushing for drastic changes at the paper, which has been part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire since 2007. 1 reason we lose subscribers is they die,” goes a joke shared by some Journal editors. population is growing more racially diverse, older white men still make up the largest chunk of its readership, with retirees a close second. Leave it to Dr.The Wall Street Journal is a rarity in 21st-century media: a newspaper that makes money. The commentariat from within The Wall Street Journal, responsible for more than one unapologetically controversial and outrageous editorial after another in recent months, is increasingly becoming an albatross around the paper's neck. This period has been comprised of four interminably long wilderness years during which belief and reality have been bound together so tightly by people who ought to know better, that the truth has more often than not been the only guest who hasn’t shown up to the party. Its nadir has come in tandem with the onset of the Trump era, which itself has been nothing if not the apotheosis of a decades-long assault on truth in America. The WSJ’s opinion section is unquestionably crying out for improvement at the moment. Barron, an early owner of our company, said, ‘Everything can be improved.’” “If we want to grow to 5.5 million digital subscribers, and if we continue with churn, traffic and digital growth about where they are today - it will take us on the order of 22 years.”Įlsewhere, the report continued, “As Clarence W. “Here’s the bottom line,” the report reads. The former, including end users and ordinary people affected by the news stories in question, appear in only about a quarter of the newspaper’s articles, per this report. Also, that reporters ought to quote more “real people” in stories, as opposed to clubby, inside-baseball, expert voices. Those problems included racial news not being sufficiently covered, because WSJ reporters are apparently skittish about pitching ideas to editors. Needless to say, such internecine warfare within the newspaper’s ranks - and spilling onto the pages of the printed product, no less - is an extraordinary turn of events.Īs if that wasn’t enough, the paper also saw a leaked report from within the newspaper itself, which had been circulated among the paper’s leadership, diagnose a number of critical flaws at the institution before it leaked to the public. It was only a couple of months ago when we saw reporters on the news side of The Journal produce a news story that pushed back against a piece prepared by The Journal’s own opinion section, which itself purported to reveal a corruption scheme and shady dealings involving Biden, his son Hunter, and various shadowy elements in Ukraine. All of which is to say: The WSJ has a serious problem, and it begins and ends with the paper’s nettlesome opinion section.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |