The editorial changes now under way represent the ascendance of a cramped, deal-centric vision of a business newspaper over an expansive one.
This outcome was predictable and predicted by me, repeatedly, along with Slate’s Jack Shafer, and maybe a million other people.
The biggest surprise, in fact, is the lack of defense out there for the idea of an expansive Journal.
Shafer now believes “what’s done is done” and even finds some principle in the idea that a newspaper owner ought to have his way, no matter what agreements he may have signed as part of the deal.
Denton buys into the idea that the Journal had gotten old, fat, and complacent:
Let the Columbia Journalism Review and other tenured hand-wringers bemoan the decimation about to be visited on the editorial ranks at the Wall Street Journal. In any war, a high casualty rate among officers means battlefield promotions for the ranks; some turnover is what the gerontocracies of the American newspaper industry most need.
He writes of “self-indulgent feature writers” and endorses the idea that the Journal needs to compete “more fiercely” for scoops.
Gapper of the FT also goes along with the idea that long-form daily journalism is outmoded and the world is clamoring for a world of FTs:
The world has changed since Kilgore and readers have less patience and spend less time with their papers. They want more easily accessible and clearly organised and illustrated news articles.
As I’ve said, the drop-off in the quality of the Journal’s page one in the past decade has been real, and it clearly hurt. For one thing, it left an opening for the Thomsons, Dentons, Gappers, the Australians and Brits, to argue that the old Journal model was tired and out of date.
I say—in fact, I know—it wasn’t the model but the execution.
Great stories will always keep the cynics and bean counters at bay.
My favorite part of the Martinez story, by the way, is the chemo bag bit; I add emphasis because I like the detail:
One day, Mrs. Kelly says, nurses wouldn’t change the chemotherapy bag in her pump until her husband made a new payment. She says she sat for an hour hooked up to a pump that beeped that it was out of medicine, until he returned with proof of payment.
Someone (Nick? John? Robert?) please remind me: Why do we think readers don’t want this?
1. “The Path That Led To Murdoch
David Ignatius
The Washington Post
Aug 2, 2007
pg. A21
2. “Inside Baseball: Giants’ 1951 Comeback, The Sport’s Greatest, Wasn’t All It Seemed —- Miracle Ended With `The Shot Heard Round the World’; It Began With a Buzzer —- `Papa’s’ Collapsible Legacy”
By Joshua Harris Prager
The Wall Street Journal.
Jan 31, 2001.
pg. A1

Well stated.
One of the pathetic aspects of this not yet terminal newspaper era is that so many of the so called watchdogs have neutered themselves. So we get Denton applauding the intellectual gutting of one of the nation's finest papers and Jack Shafer--an otherwise fine media critic--losing his nerve on the WSJ. I grew up in New York and watched as Murdoch's NY Post fed and encouraged the very worst instincts in New York for over a decade. Why wouldn't one scream and complain about that?
The conceit of excellence and ambition is a fine thing. Better to go noisy into night than to mimmick the gilt purchased silence of a Marcus Brauchli.
Posted by Michael Powell
on Thu 8 May 2008 at 10:56 PM
There is a word; you don't have to make one up. Anglicization.
Posted by Joe on Tue 12 Aug 2008 at 01:47 PM
My feelings exactly.
Furthermore, my first gripe on first looking into Rupert's W$J.com 2.0 is this: Where is the "News by Sector" link?
This was the most useful point of entry for the hard business reader, taking you to the crushingly boring but actually useful stuff: the print and breaking DJ Newswire content on a given sector.
What the hell does the W$J need with a sports section, a lifestyle section, and a section called, inanely, "The Buzz"? Who buys the Journal to read up on Amy Winehouse's drug rehab and tattoo-related hepatitis?
Posted by C. Brayton on Fri 19 Sep 2008 at 09:24 AM
What planet are you living on? British newspapers are far better produced and offer much deeper, intelligent and well-presented insight than their American offspring.
I've never understood this unwarranted reverence for the Wall Street Journal. By contrast to the British papers FT and the Guardian, it looks and reads like it was produced decades ago.
Posted by Anon journalist on Thu 9 Oct 2008 at 03:09 PM
Reporters let bloggers and columnists do the work From Gas Tax to Safety Valve The press gets wrapped up in one debate, but misses a parallel The Anglo-ization of The Wall Street Journal. A struggle over the editor was about much more than turf The Missing Genre.
=====================================
Brian
british columbia drug rehab
Posted by Brian2008 on Tue 11 Nov 2008 at 06:56 AM
To "anglicize" is "to make or become English in form or character." Because Mr. Starkman specifically describes Murdoch's "Anglo-Australian newspaper model," his use of "Anglo-ization" in the title is appropriate. Besides, do you really suppose anyone at CJR isn't familiar with the more common term?
Posted by Cyrus on Tue 11 Nov 2008 at 05:18 PM
Hi,
I have read about the Article is The Anglo-ization of The Wall Street Journal....
Good coverage of the greased exit of Marcus Brauchli, including in the Journal itself, revealed that the dispute, for all its media-power-play aspects, is in the end actually an argument over journalism, of all things—more esoterically, even, over journalism forms.
Shareefa
texas drug rehab
Posted by shareefa on Fri 14 Nov 2008 at 07:14 AM