What Kilgore did was bet on quality: storytelling, depth, context—all those windy, high-minded things that sound tedious but are actually what make journalism worth reading. In effect, he bet on readers, and they rewarded him, in spades. When Kilgore died, in 1967, Journal circulation had topped a million and was on its way to becoming in the 1970s the country’s biggest-circulation paper, at 1.7 million. It’s about two million today.
It was always a hothouse flower, this odd journalism culture, and to be sure, it had its ups and downs. It needed subsequent generations to maintain it and build on it.
The fact is, the wrenching sale of the Journal’s parent in 2007 in effect grafted a News Corp. head on the Journal’s body. The graft never really took, and ever since a web of senior editors from the ancien regime has struggled to maintain old standards and practices while adapting to the new leadership. Freedman was part of that, my sense, a key part.
Of course the Journal still does great stuff—thanks in large part to this legacy—and will in the future. But there is a point of no return, and we’re fast approaching it.
I’d say Freedman’s departure could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, but it feels more like an anvil.
And another thing: The Journal’s loss may be Reuters’s gain, but this isn’t a zero-sum game. The unraveling of the Journal’s storytelling machine is a huge loss for the public. Reuters, in the end is, a wire, from an entirely different journalism tradition. It may one day be something else, but it has a long way to go.
The Journal really was unique. Maybe it can still be. Maybe not.
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