Under Murdoch, Tilting Rightward at The WSJ

[babylonsister]

Under Murdoch, Tilting Rightward at The Journal

By DAVID CARR
Published: December 13, 2009


Sunday was the second anniversary of the sale of The Wall Street Journal to Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation. At that time, a chorus of journalism church ladies (I was among them) warned that one of the crown jewels of American journalism now resided in the hands of a roughneck, and predicted that he would use it to his own ends.

Yet here we are, two years later, and The Wall Street Journal still hits my doorstep every morning as one of the nation’s premier newspapers.

But under Mr. Murdoch’s leadership, the newspaper is no longer anchored by those deep dives into the boardrooms of American business with quaint stippled portraits, opting instead for a much broader template of breaking general interest news articles with a particular interest in politics and big splashy photos. Glenn R. Simpson, who left the newspaper back in March, is not a fan of the newsier, less analytical Journal.

“Murdoch didn’t ruin The Wall Street Journal; he just rendered it into a much more ordinary paper,” he said.

But there are growing indications that Mr. Murdoch, a lifelong conservative, doesn’t just want to cover politics, he wants to play them as well.

A little over a year ago, Robert Thomson, The Journal’s top editor, picked Gerard Baker, a columnist for The Times of London, as his deputy managing editor. Mr. Baker is a former Washington bureau chief of The Financial Times with a great deal of expertise in the Beltway. The two men came of age in the more partisan milieu of British journalism.

According to several former members of the Washington bureau and two current ones, the two men have had a big impact on the paper’s Washington coverage, adopting a more conservative tone, and editing and headlining articles to reflect a chronic skepticism of the current administration. And given that the paper’s circulation continues to grow, albeit helped along by some discounts, there’s nothing to suggest that The Journal’s readers don’t approve.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/business/media/14carr.html?_r=2&hp

[emulatorloo]

1. And yet the WSJ is cited seriously all the time around here

Pre-Murdoch, Editorial page was always WINGNUT territory, but reporting used to be pretty good.

Now the whole thing is about as reliable as Fox News.

[leveymg]

2. WSJ has done some of the best investigative reporting. NYT used to. Both are now RIP.

Investigative reporting by the corporate MSM is all but dead. Long live the Blogs.

[asdjrocky]

3. And this just in-

Rain is wet.

[KharmaTrain]

4. The WSJ Has Always Been Right Wing...

Their editorial page was the home of some of the most rabid wingnuts...like John Fund and their non-stop climate change denial long pre-dates Murdoch taking over. Above all, it's pro-business...that's who it serves and pays its bills. It will always champion the rich over all else and unabashed corportism and capitalism. It's who they are.

Fortunately the WSJ's biggest asset...providing raw data about the markets can be found elsewhere. Any major scoop they get is echoed in many other places. Their value has diminished greatly in the Internet age and hopefully Rupert will be taking a big bath on buying this fish wrap like he is with many of his other ventures.

The fool has been bleeding red ink for a while thanks to his push for "deregualtion" that has weakened competition and drove people away from his newspapers and TV stations. Let him keep rooting for the corporates until he goes Chapter 11...

[NJCher]

7. Hear, hear!

Let him keep rooting for the corporates until he goes Chapter 11...

:toast:




Cher

[Vinnie From Indy]

5. Murdoch is nothing less than a super villain vampire

I am still hoping Murdoch puts his empire behind a pay wall. I think his idea is a major miscalculation and will hasten his demise.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Gerard Baker was always the most conservative writer on The Times (of London)

and it is a right-leaning paper anyway. There was probably no journalist in Britain more pro-Bush (a few that are as right wing, but they tended to have a bit of scepticism about Bush anyway; Baker just worshipped him).