Comments on: The sensationalist WSJ

By: Dan

Dan — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:43:02 +0000

“Sweeping curbs on pay and roiled allies make for great headlines, and mean that readers are that much more likely to shell out $2 for the paper”

I guess you subscribe or read it online – in Atlanta the news stand price is $3 a paper, which is outrageous.

I decided not to renew when The Journal added what it regarded as a sports page. No thanks – ESPN.com and SI.com take care of that for me.

As opposed to being a great business news paper, The Journal is now just another newspaper with an excellent business section.

By: freefall

freefall — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 07:17:26 +0000

Since when has propaganda been re-classified as news? The social engineering tool of public perception has been recognized since at least as far back as the Nazi era. It is a tool that has progressed enormously since then because of the great potential for controlling the masses. Certainly our republican neo cons have honed the use of this misleading tactic to a fine art. At first the media had to be hood-winked into participating with the propaganda mill. But daddy Bush knew the significant power of media control. The choice of General Powels son to head the FCC and oversee the rape of the electromagnetic spectrum for the absolute monopoly of the air waves for the Grand Old Party was a shrewd way of keeping the treachery close to home. Many of you have not grasped the true effect of the massing of media ownership into a very few select hands. Maybe it can be summed up by an old monologue from the Outer Limits, if you recall, “do not attempt to adjust the picture, we control the horizontal, we control the vertical.” In a similar manner they control the debate because they control what the news is and what public opinion is. That is why the media has a “liberal bias.” The truth is classified don’t you know! God help them if it ever gets out.

By: donna

donna — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:30:10 +0000

Murdoch — destroying journalism and creating journamalism wherever he goes!

At least when the papers were the “liberal media” one could learn something from them…

By: Tim B

Tim B — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:14:50 +0000

The WSJ, along with the Washington Post and any other newspaper that hitched its wagon to the neoconservative movement even as it went down in flames, has become a farce unworthy of the attention of anyone seeking to understand current events.

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:18:56 +0000

Financial newspapers are finished as keepers of record. They will gradually slip into becoming a voice of their proprietors, like some have already. The readership will increase, and the venerable brands will have less and less to do with genuine news reporting. Financially, it was only ever a tout sheet. Why should anyone be sad?.

By: dvictr

dvictr — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 19:46:26 +0000

any headline using a word with 14 letters is sensationalism at its best!

By: vimothy

vimothy — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:28:05 +0000

Re “missile U-turn”: It’s not even true anyway. Ballastic missile defence is *not* being abandoned, the US is merely shifting to THAAD missiles and SM-3s, which are better equipped to deal with (the much more likely) Iranian short to medium range missiles than (non-existant) ICBMs. Furthermore, SecDef Gates announced this in April 09. WSJ — do your research.

By: Ginger Yellow

Ginger Yellow — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:55:52 +0000

It will be interesting to see if the FT can capitalise on this change in the US. But I suspect that in practice most of the readers of the WSJ would prefer sensationalist headlines that fit their ideology than neutralish-headlines accompanied by editorials and sometimes news stories that frequently undermine their ideology.

By: Adam Sharp

Adam Sharp — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 05:29:08 +0000

Such a shame. Assuming the mismanagement continues, it’ll be interesting to see who emerges as the biz community’s fav. Or maybe the WSJ remains top-dog, and the O’Reilly-zation of media rolls on.

By: Tom Hickey

Tom Hickey — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:31:45 +0000

The problem is that eventually people figure out that you are selling sizzle instead of steak. Down the line the stories are going to have to sensationalized, too, so as not to disappoint.

The WSJ is finished as a newspaper of record. It will gradually slip into becoming a voice of Rupert Murdoch, like his other properties. The readership will increase, and the venerable WSJ will have less and less to do with genuine news reporting. Financially, it will become a tout sheet. Sad.

By: Denis

Denis — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:26:53 +0000

Also notem that both headlines seem to reflect Mr. Murdoch’s political agenda (at least, my senses of non-native English speaker do not find “sweeping curbs” and “roils allies” particularly balanced and neutral expressions).

By: quantacide

quantacide — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:21:13 +0000

Like this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12536318 5390630877.html#mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTWhatsNew s

400 words to say, “We’re also going to look at index, and not just singlenames.”

WSJ is financial gossip. A shame that the FT has lost a bit of its edge as well. I blame the bloggers.