But this is supposed to be the part about the Journal’s good stuff. Kara Scannell and Susanne Craig wrote the defining story on Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Christopher Cox. We knew he was passive. This story shows him to be certifiably Hooverian. On missing a key call on the Bear Stearns bailout:
In an interview, Mr. Cox said the time of the call changed overnight and no one told him.
On missing another key meeting, at which officials discussed, among other things, a Fed plan to lend funds to investment banks, “a radical shift that took the central bank into the SEC’s turf,” the story says:
Mr. Cox says his participation wasn’t required. “Because [the Bear Stearns loan] was the Fed’s money, they were chiefly responsible for the terms,” said Mr. Cox.
The SEC, which typically has five commissioners in all, had two vacant seats. Paul Atkins, one of Mr. Cox’s two remaining fellow commissioners, was traveling overseas and wasn’t informed about developments. He was furious, a person familiar with the matter says.
Mr. Cox says commission approval wasn’t warranted. He instead worked with his staff on “very intense and rapid” decisions.
The weekend after the Bear Stearns bailout, Mr. Cox headed to the Caribbean for a scheduled family vacation. He worked throughout, he said, staying in touch with SEC staff when needed.
The next week, as Mr. Cox returned from his trip, the Treasury Department unveiled a proposal to overhaul financial-services regulation. It called for dissolving the SEC and handing its Wall Street brief to another federal body. (6)
And a word about the Journal’s Wall Street coverage: No one has been better at getting inside the boardrooms of the fallen firms—Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers particularly. I recognize the industry involved in, and the value of, the three-day Bear Stearns series that ran in May, even if it’s not my cup of tea. The level of detail found in the Morgan Stanley (7) and Lehman (8) coverage is remarkable.
Kate Kelly’s page one tour de force of November 1, 2007, which chronicles
how Bear’s then chief played bridge and smoked pot while two subprime hedge funds collapsed, is a journalistic achievement of the highest order.
This, after she and her colleagues beat the world in explaining the significance of the funds’ collapse in real time. (9)
This year, the Journal’s coverage of Lehman was unmatched. It signaled the bank’s balance-sheet problems in the spring and after its fall dug deep into what its management knew and when it knew it.
A story on October 8, “The Two Faces of Lehman’s Fall,” (10) established facts of unquestioned value.
The ailing securities firm quietly tapped the European Central Bank and the Federal Reserve as financial lifelines. On Sept. 10, one day after Lehman executives calculated the firm needed at least $3 billion in fresh capital, the firm assured investors on a conference call it needed no new capital at all. Lehman said its massive real-estate portfolio was valued properly, but Wall Street executives who have seen it say it was overvalued by more than $10 billion. As hedge-fund clients began yanking their money from Lehman, the firm assured them it was on solid financial footing.
None of those sentences was easy to pry loose. Each represents a scoop in itself, and all carried a degree of risk for the paper.
The Journal broke the news that Lehman executives were under federal investigation for possibly misleading investors about its financial condition (see footnote 10), just as it reported the feds were probing AIG executives for the same reason. (11)
Ah, well. It’s not easy being the global financial news leader in a time of global financial crisis.
And I’m not even going to mention the not-getting-it pieces, like the not one but two stories this year on “shopaholism” (12, 13) that recycle hackneyed myths about middle-class debt woes.
If you’re keeping score—and I’m afraid that’s what this is about for some—the Journal has been beaten on Citi, Goldman, Paulson, the Federal Reserve bailout, and AIG; it has won on the SEC, Lehman and Bear Stearns, and held its own on Fannie, Freddie, regulators and Greenspan.

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