At The Wall Street Journal, Murdoch’s most dramatic change was shifting the paper away from business news to general news. What this move has in common with The Daily is that it makes the Journal less distinctive, more of a commodity, more conventional, more like everything else. Is that what he means by defining a market broadly?
As Wolff says, quite astutely: “Murdoch and [now former WSJ Managing Editor Robert] Thomson took one of the most distinctive, stylized and “branded” voices in journalism - its look and feel recognizable at 30 paces - and flattened it.”
In the name of what, exactly?
One thing you notice when the anti-elitist trope is floated is that rarely if ever is an actual elitist reporter singled out, nor even stories that should be considered elitist or targeted for “other journalists.”
So what’s behind this ressentiment, this sense of grievance?
After all, under this logic, the fact that the Journal hasn’t won a (news) Pulitzer since Murdoch bought the place is actually a good thing. Is it really?
I think Murdoch’s charge of elitism is actually a code for something else.
“Elite” journalism, such as the Journal once produced twice a day and still does less frequently, is a very expensive and, yes, very difficult proposition. Sometime it can be boring. But sometimes it can be very powerful. And this is the key concept: powerful, particularly against elites, the real kind. Often it can be highly entertaining. Here’re some of all of the above:
And sometime it can be both. If you don’t believe me, read the Wendy Deng story from 2000.
The next time someone complains about media elitism, ask them what they mean.
Charges of elitism against 'the media' are more subtle than CJR is willing to admit. The ideology of Progressivism has always boiled down to the idea of government by a meritocratic, credentialed elite, as opposed to having decisions made by vulgar capitalists. What's so hard to grasp about the notion that political struggles are essentially struggles for status among competing and powerful social and political individuals and institutions?
In 1936, polled Harvard students endorsed Landon over Roosevelt, I am told, by about 2:1. Roosevelt won in a landslide, of course. Forty-eight years later, Mondale outpolled Reagan by about the same margin, but Reagan won in a landlside. Seven or eight of the ten richest counties in the United States, according to the Census, are in the DC metro area. The Democrats have been winning the richest Congressional districts, including the district containing Columbia University. Starkman is, in fact, writing his article under the sponsorship of an Ivy League university, one of those whose mission is fairly explicitly to help train a ruling class. Daniel P. Moynihan noted decades ago that journalism was evolving into a leisure-class profession - children of presidents don't go into engineering much, by comparison. The nexus of 'progressive' politics, affluence, and journalism is something CJR must never concede is a social reality, hence this article.
#1 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 8 Jan 2013 at 01:08 PM
In right-wing crazy land, "media elite" means "reporters who are not stupid." No more, no less.
Oh, and point 5? That's the plan, Dean. No way you don't know that.
#2 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Tue 8 Jan 2013 at 01:33 PM
Michael Wolff's bewildering charge of elitism on the march at the pre-Rupert Murdoch WSJ is just plain dippy. The real fuel for The WSJ's success back in the day was its adherence to a Midwestern sensibility, a principle light years removed from Mr. Wolff's (and perhaps Mr. Murdoch's) puerile & overarching contention that we wrote stories for "elites" & "only other journalists." Utter hooey, but then nowadays everybody is a media anthropologist.
#3 Posted by ACC, CJR on Wed 9 Jan 2013 at 07:07 AM
Truth, ACC.
Wolff's Murdochian populism now includes the WSJ. uber-luxe magazine, a highbrow review section, and an elite Off Duty section. Oh, and a section that they actually call "Mansion."
#4 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Thu 10 Jan 2013 at 12:58 PM
I remember that in New York - maybe back in the 1960s or early 1970s, probably after one of the newspaper strikes - an paper that carried only comics and syndicated columns opened. It died pretty quickly. Can't remember the name. But its fate seems to fit in with Dean Starkman's critique of the elitism charge. Also, point # 5 should be crystal clear. Owning all the newspapers is the only way to guarantee that they'll all put up a paywall online, thus forcing consumers to pay for online newspaper news. As long as you don't own them all, some publisher seeking some sort of unknown competitive advantage might give it away free.
#5 Posted by Sal Caputo, CJR on Thu 10 Jan 2013 at 05:46 PM
Government by capitalists, Mark? Really? That's your answer?
A fig for democracy!
#6 Posted by Harry Eagar, CJR on Thu 10 Jan 2013 at 10:12 PM