Anyone who thinks the departure of Alix M. Freedman, the WSJ’s Page One editor, a twenty-seven-year Journal mainstay, and winner of one of the more storied Pulitzers in my old paper’s storied past, is inside-baseball for media types is dead wrong.
It’s a devastating blow to that institution, the great story-telling factory that revolutionized American journalism and became the great popularizer for the middle class of things financial, economic, and corporate.
Think I’m overstating things? I’m not.
The Journal has suffered a series of such blows, some obvious, some not, since the takeover by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. (and, truth be told, a good bit of bleeding since before the takeover, too). Established professionals have defected, lately in droves. Dodgy political tampering began showing up in the news pages. Stories were shortened and productivity demands increased, part of the general hamsterization of the news media, a concept the FCC picked up on in its big study in June. The number of Page One “leders,” the in-depth, long-form stories that were the paper’s hallmark, was halved, while the elite Page One operation was itself deconstructed. Generally speaking, speed and brevity are in, depth and narrative, out.
This is to say nothing of the reputational blows it has suffered as part of the News Corp. empire.
Freedman is best known for her Pulitzer-winning series on the tobacco industry, the highlights of which can be read here. The series used internal document obtained from tobacco companies to devastating effect, showing, among other things, that companies knew all along that nicotine was addictive and even likened it to cocaine; they knew “lite” cigarettes were as dangerous as regular ones, even as they said otherwise; that companies enhanced nicotine delivery by adding ammonia-based compounds, and much more. The series (reported, it should be said, amid intense competition from other news organizations) helped lay the groundwork for the restructuring of that entire industry, including the 1998 “master settlement agreement” with 46 states.
And tobacco was really only the highlight of a long string of investigative and narrative stories—into the rent-to-own business, alcohol sales in inner cities, a secretive company that dominated the market for cheap handguns—that, safe to say, put Freedman on the top wrung of Journal staffers, probably all-time, which is saying something.
Freedman would go on to become the standards editor, which is sort of the conscience of the paper, then in April was named to head Page One, where she lasted all of four months before her departure today (and yes, that’s weird).
But it’s more than a single journalist, but an entire journalism culture that’s in play. To understand, you have to back up a bit—to 1941.
When wunderkind Bernard Kilgore took over as managing editor of the Journal at the ripe old age of 32, the paper did some nice business reporting, but it was narrow and formulaic, a dreary pastiche of incremental business stories—mostly government or corporate reports—arranged haphazardly on page one and throughout the paper and aimed solely at investors. The paper’s circulation, in the mid-30,000s, hadn’t recovered since the Crash of ’29 (it was never that big; 50,000 was the peak) and its owner, Dow Jones, was on fumes financially.
Kilgore’s genius was to throw out the stale editorial model—the inverted pyramid, all that crap—and create a system that would be able to produce two long-form stories a day and take readers into corners of the economy they would otherwise never have seen: a salad-oil swindle in New Jersey, Lyndon Johnson’s wife’s broadcasting empire, slave-labor camps in Houston. Eventually, of course, Journal reporters slipped the bounds of business reporting itself—or expanded them, one could argue—and ventured further and further into American society: the secret shame of illiterates, Cabrini Green, chicken plants, you name it.
To do these kinds of stories, two a day, day after day, Kilgore and his lieutenants created an organization-within-an-organization, Page One, that was autonomous, anomalous, and imperious, but, all in all, produced a pretty talented bunch of journalists over the years.

Interesting analysis but the story is bigger than the WSJ.
Freedman's departure says less about the WSJ and more about the future of financial media. Sites like Seeking Alpha are gobbling up readership, powered by niche-bloggers who can't match the WSJ in story-telling but can in analysis and opinion -- without the fancy office overhead endemic to MSM.
#1 Posted by Zack Miller (Tradestreaming), CJR on Thu 8 Sep 2011 at 08:58 AM
Don't worry about the WSJ, they will be fine..worry about their readers and the body politic affected by the op-ed pages. Those pages are so far to right that it is not even in oligarchs LONG TERM self interest.
#2 Posted by gman, CJR on Thu 8 Sep 2011 at 10:11 AM
I believe that the editorial slant started affecting the quality of reporting long before Murdoch took over. It's simply not possible in the modern corporation for subordinates to know what the boss--not to mention the advertisers, and the subscribers-- thinks and not have it affect their behavior. While there was some great journalism there, please hold the paeans. It was a paper going rotten when Murdoch bought it.
#3 Posted by Charles, CJR on Thu 8 Sep 2011 at 10:43 AM
Wow. An excellent eulogy for the Journal.
I am reminded of the scene in The Empire Strikes Back wherein Lando Calrissian sends out the word to the inhabitants of Cloud City that it is in the hands of the Empire, as he abandons the city ... I expect something of a similar nature is going on at the Journal ...
Sad that the only place that most people can trust for what passes as "news analysis" is either the blogosphere, or things like the Onion or The Daily Show ...
Eventually, I suppose that something will emerge to take the place of the journalism that has been lost, but I don't see it anywhere on the horizon ...
#4 Posted by constantnormal, CJR on Thu 8 Sep 2011 at 11:00 AM
Read and watch Al-Jazeera, it's non-American influence is refreshing.
#5 Posted by matthew, CJR on Thu 8 Sep 2011 at 11:19 AM
Thanks Constant, Charles, Gman, Mathew, Zack.
Zack, the picture is a slightly more complicated, I think. Seeking Alpha's gains haven't been at the expense of the WSJ, at least according to the circulation figures they release. My argument is the WSJ should do both (as it actually always did) but differentiate itself via its traditional reporting and writing strengths.
#6 Posted by Dean Starkman, CJR on Thu 8 Sep 2011 at 11:40 AM
Sad about WSJ but Reuters is hoovering up good people and doing good work. Their series on the anonymity of corporations and how that facilitates fraud is powerful stuff.
Bloomberg is what's lagging--they and their "no but" editorial policy. Underachievers, even if they're also achieving quite a bit.
#7 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Thu 8 Sep 2011 at 12:03 PM
Maybe Freedman would have fixed your first sentence -- such an awkward construction! Great story though.
#8 Posted by Martin Unsal, CJR on Thu 8 Sep 2011 at 12:15 PM
wsj is a cesspool of right wing propoganda just like fox news
let it die
#9 Posted by rupert lies, CJR on Thu 8 Sep 2011 at 12:40 PM
Not surprising WSJ is being hamsterized. Fox News has been hamsterized for many yesrs. All the journalists and 'News' reporters are spinning in circles for the Murdochs.
#10 Posted by Tony S., CJR on Thu 8 Sep 2011 at 01:37 PM
Martin, She definitely could help with that. But how come no one caught my typo, "wrung" stedda "rung"? :)
Tony, love that you brought up hamsterization. One of my favorite topics. More here: http://bit.ly/jCBKmX
#11 Posted by Dean Starkman, CJR on Thu 8 Sep 2011 at 01:43 PM
Oh, and Ed, great point about Bloomberg. I agree.
#12 Posted by Dean Starkman, CJR on Thu 8 Sep 2011 at 02:00 PM
Pet peeve:
It isn't necessary or advisable, generally, to shorten and/or conceal your URL link on a website. That's a noxious Twitter thing that is entirely unnecessary down here on the ground.
1) People like to see where the link goes before clicking on it. One can't tell if the link goes to a forbidden site, (especially at work, where I am not) or to an undesirable website, or a website that your reader thinks may be a waste of time and energy.
2) Shortened URLs are susceptible to link rot far more quickly than real links.
3) Shortened URLs are more susceptible to privacy issues such as surreptitious tracking.
4) It is much, much classier to use the standard labeled link HTML protocol as such: The Hamster Wheel : CJR.
Submitted for your consideration with all due respect.
#13 Posted by James, CJR on Thu 8 Sep 2011 at 02:11 PM
Virtually all the front page items are continued to the interior of the Journal, so what does loss of the headline writer do? This change might affect the "look and feel" in the rack, but considering the overall political tone of the paper, I expect little noticeable effect. Now, if Barron's were to lose Alan Abelson, that is a more material and fundamental loss in my view. To me content beats appearances every time.
#14 Posted by Gregory Iwan, CJR on Thu 8 Sep 2011 at 02:17 PM
Thanks, James. I thought I was being up-to-the-moment, but live and learn.
I actually don't know how to do the classy-looking link you post there. I usually just copy and paste the sprawling link I see up in the command line. Wd be glad for instruction.
Gregory, I take your point but in fact the page one editor of days past had near complete control over story content, both text and headlines. But sure, losing Abelson would be a big change.
#15 Posted by Dean Starkman, CJR on Thu 8 Sep 2011 at 03:02 PM
Apart fom the fact that WSJ editorial pages now feature Fox News regulars like Karl Rove and Sarah Palin, the news content itself has all the distinctiveness of a news aggregator, something which is decidely not worth the yearly subscription fee.
#16 Posted by Otis C. Bing, CJR on Thu 8 Sep 2011 at 03:55 PM
padikiller tolls the Reality Bell, once again:
I've got some unpleasant news for you self-described "professional journalists"...
Anyone with an 8th grade education and an internet connection can do your jobs, and if they lack your silly commie/liberal biases (or if they can overcome them, or if they can overcome any other biases and report objectively), they can do your jobs a WHOLE lot better than you hacks can!...
Yours is not a "profession", guys. You aren't licensed, like true professionals (as doctors, lawyers, plumbers or exterminators are). There is no examination. You only have to write at an intermediate school level.
You are typists. Plain and simple.
Any moron can do what you do.
Deal with it. Or don't. This R E A L I T Y isn't going anywhere.
Evolve or die, dudes.
#17 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 8 Sep 2011 at 11:05 PM
padikiller dude's ringing bell is the one inside his otherwise empty head.
#18 Posted by ericv, CJR on Fri 9 Sep 2011 at 03:15 AM