Yes, the Journal did its compensation story first (1), but it was hardly the last word and so much has been learned since then.
Also showing surprising grit has been Bloomberg News. Unheralded, gloves-off, the wire service has remorselessly hammered at the financial crisis’s heart—right on Wall Street. A Bloomberg expose documented Goldman Sachs’s toxic securities operation under Hank Paulson’s tenure. The Journal described how Goldman “won big’ on the mortgage meltdown.(2)
On holding the government accountable for the bailout, this historic raid on the U.S. Treasury, Bloomberg, a former business-news backwater, has been unparalleled. The Journal wins scoops from the government; Bloomberg has sued it. It’s just a different approach.
It is not too much to say that Bloomberg’s work, had it run in the Journal, would have changed the public’s understanding of the bailout and the course of the current debate. (Several links are below.) Paulson’s credibility would have been considerably lower; skepticism of his moves much higher. The debate about the relative contributions to the crisis of Wall Street and, say, the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, would be over.
This is a failure not of industry but of imagination. The Journal, as an institution, has shown that it clearly understands it is reporting the greatest financial story of our lives. Bloomberg and the Times understand, however, that they are also reporting the greatest-ever financial scandal.
This is about institutional leadership—setting priorities and allocating resources. It’s about recognizing the need for responsibility, accountability, empathy, moral imagination. It’s about knowing when you’ve been had—had your lunch eaten—by the people and institutions you’ve been covering all these years, and being mad about it. It’s about professional pride. Or is that just for the rank-and-file?
Great newspaperman? See, let The Audit explain something: You don’t get to be that by owning a lot of newspapers. If that were true, whoever owned the Thomson chain would be great, and whoever heard of them? Owning several dozen Fond du Lac Reporters and Guelph Monitors just doesn’t get it done. Neither will owning a hundred New York Posts and Sunday Tasmanians.
No, great newspaper men and women got that way because they sensed a broader purpose to the enterprise and built a culture based on those beliefs, one mundane decision at a time. And when the key historical moment arrived—New York Times v. Sullivan, Watergate, the Pentagon Papers, right now—they rose to the occasion. Those owners had a sense of mission, and they were willing to bet the company on it. That’s the difference between Katharine Graham and Rupert Murdoch. She doesn’t need a biographer to tell everyone she was great.
But let’s be clear: News Corp. took over the paper at a low ebb. Mediocre journalism—passionless, unimaginative, overly stylized, formulaic, timid, dull, rote—all too routinely occupied the Journal’s famous page one long before Murdoch and Thomson ever arrived. Indeed, the journalistic torpor cleared the way for News Corp. When Murdoch and Thomson arrived, they openly questioned, even mocked, what Thomson has called the staff’s “fetishization” of the Journal’s page one and long-form journalism. But how would they know what they were missing?
And in fairness to editorial management, the crisis could not have come at a worse time. Murdoch made his unsolicited bid for the Journal’s late, not-great parent, Dow Jones & Co., in the spring of 2007, catching its controlling shareholders, the feckless and unworthy Bancroft family, with their jodhpurs down, just as the crisis was unfurling. It was a full year before Murdoch had won the paper, jettisoned its not-quite-flexible-enough top editor in clear breach of signed agreements, and installed Thomson, a former Financial Times editor, to run the show.
New management came in intent on shaking up the culture, and a period of experimentation was inevitable and even desirable. It’s too bad it had to come during this past year.
Thank you for this.
Posted by Josh Young on Thu 25 Dec 2008 at 04:21 AM
What a brilliant piece! Not only did I learn about standards of exemplary journalism, I also learned about our current economic crisis. Great review.
Posted by Yigal on Sat 27 Dec 2008 at 08:27 AM
Smart piece. I, too, agree that in its rush to be breezier/faster/bigger, the WSJ has abandoned those qualities that made it different - hence attractive - to that affluent readership that NEEDED to have the paper every day. These days, WSJ informs, but does not educate. It reports, but does not enlighten. It offers information, but has little insight. Time was the Journal told you what happened behind the scenes or instructed you on really interesting developments in different industries. Now all it does is try to spark circulation gains by running alarmist headlines on its front page and short articles so bereft of data that a glance at the headlines is all one needs to know what's going to be communicated. I feel like it's another journalism layoff notice: The WSJ has left its position and will not be replaced. In its stead is a publication that is most definitely not a must read in any circle.
Posted by snout on Tue 30 Dec 2008 at 01:36 PM
I agree with snout. The WSJ has become so thin on relevant information that I've decided to stop getting the print product. When a company cuts back on quality and jacks up the price, I see no reason to keep giving them my hard-earned dollars. I can buy USA Today for $1 and get more information on sports and entertainment. It's a shame that no big media outlet is covering the business sector with vigor on a day-in day-out basis
Posted by argybargy on Tue 30 Dec 2008 at 03:02 PM
Strong review. Very comprehensive, though I still say the whole gang--NYT, WaPo, WSJ & everyone--should have been telling us derivatives were dangerous 10 years ago. Also, I think you mean 1100 reporters at the NYT--not 110? and the Ferrari Enzo is $1.2 million, not $1.2.
Posted by ed ericson on Wed 31 Dec 2008 at 06:37 PM
"The FT is a fine little paper, just like Britain and Australia are fine little countries. But the FT’s newsgathering operation in this crisis has been irrelevant. It effectively has no investigative capability."
Whoa! Let's put aside the snide remark about Britain and Australia, and concentrate on the journalism here. Yes, Bloomberg has done a great job. But for those wanting to understand the crisis, the FT has been the only newspaper to read. American publications can publish all the "narratives" they want, but a key element of journalism is making sense of apparently random events through thought-provoking analysis. The FT has done this in exemplary fashion. Irrelevant? No. Irreplaceable - absolutely.
Posted by paul abrahams on Mon 12 Jan 2009 at 10:20 PM
Isn't this the same Paul Abrahams who worked (or still does?) for the FT. Typical of British journalism to fail to divulge that sort of information
Posted by handsby shbanlina on Fri 16 Jan 2009 at 01:06 PM
ha ha ha WSJ 2007 on the skids, or in them.
Rupert Murdoch has struck a deal to acquire The Wall Street Journal and its parent company, Dow Jones & Co.
Merrill Lynch was hired by the Bancroft family's chief trustee to evaluate the Murdoch bid, but it's also part of a banking syndicate that agreed to lend News Corp. $2.25 billion in May.
Posted by paul short on Fri 6 Mar 2009 at 11:49 AM