Great column today by David Carr at the NYT, writing about the evolution (or devolution) of the WSJ, through the lens of the departures of both Stuart Karle and Marcus Brauchli. Carr looks at what the changes mean for the Journal and for the reporters and editors who have remained. It's nuanced but pretty harsh, and hits on two main points:
1. There is some sense that people in power at the WSJ had a responsibility to fight for what they believed in, and not take the money and run. Carr does put this in context, but the thread is clearly there. In some ways, it is reminiscent of all the military leaders who stayed quiet about Iraq and concerns until after they were retired. Safer, sure, but a lot less effective. As the article says:
Mr. Brauchli’s decision to go quietly conforms with a pattern of rolling complicity ever since Mr. Murdoch made a play for the paper. The family that owned the paper, the Bancrofts, ran in circles, and then accepted Mr. Murdoch’s money and his promises to uphold the paper’s traditions and just plain ran.
2. The bigger question is what the journal will stand for in the future. After all, if the Journal is simply any old newspaper, which to some extent is what it appears to be morphing into, then where is the true value add? Carr notes:
Mr. Murdoch has a few more billions to his credit than I do, but the paper looks to me to be surrendering much of its fundamental value. In order to make The Journal a first-read, Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Thomson are toying with the interest of those of us who have always thought of it as a can’t-miss second read.
“It is an odd and risky change from a reader and advertising standpoint,” said Lauren Rich Fine, a professor at Kent State University and a former media analyst. “They have a rich, targeted demographic, and what are they trading it for?”
In print daily journalism, I've always believed there were three must read newspapers -- The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post. Plus whatever local paper existed in my local town, of course. ;) It's too early still to tell what the Journal will look like in six months. A year from now, my fervent hope is that there still are three must reads, and I have my fingers crossed.