Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal is going synergytastic with a new partner. Nope, not Sam Zell and his Tribune printing plants, although that's still going to happen.
No, the WSJ, bitchslapped by the reality of falling sales and rising costs, is joining up with HarperCollins in a three year plan to promote books written by the Journal's "expert editors and reporters." Neat!
Of course, since wire-service Reuters is now no longer an objective source of news, they put their two cents in about the upcoming book club with a grain of irony that even we couldn't top.
CONTINUED »
Sam Zell's Tribune Company may start distributing The Wall Street Journal in metro areas, because it's not already enough of a giant clusterfuck over in the newspaper industry now that we need Rupert Murdoch's Journal being thrown at your door by the same guys who bring you theLA Times.
And what is Zell doing taking on this deal, which is still in "trial runs" with the local teamsters running the trucks? Didn't we just hear about how the man can't even afford his own baseball team, and now he's getting into some weird MGM/Weinstein-esque arrangement with another media baron?
CONTINUED »
Guess print sales are really down: The Wall Street Journal and Amazon are launching online wineries in an effort to make more money trafficking in getting people wasted than they were by getting them to read. Amazon's site isn't up yet, but mosey on down to WSJwine to get all sorts of Sideways without ever leaving your small, dark apartment.
Sounds great. Especially if you're 16 and no one is checking IDs:
Taking a cue from all those kids working for him over at MySpace, Australian immortal Rupert Murdoch imparted a new design for the Wall Street Journal online. The new site, which goes live tomorrow, includes more features for the paid memberships accounts, and restricted access for the plebes who choose not to fork over their dough.
Sure, it was always possible to read WSJ articles that were technically membership only, but now if you wanted to say, comment on any of the pieces and engage in a spirited debate with other individuals, you need the premium membership account. There is also a network function for the premies; so it will be just like MySpace, except that you will be forced to use your real name and identity, as verified against your billing address, on the site. The concept behind this pulling-back of the Internet's anonymous curtain being that the news sites where anyone is allowed to comment under a pseudonym (*ahem*) leave themselves open for baseless, personal attacks. CONTINUED »
Anyone who says you can't judge a book by its cover doesn't read. You're telling us you don't know just by looking at it that the book at right, the one displaying Fred Thompson's giant mug in front of some blue construction paper, ended up being "given away or trashed"?
Also very telling about a book is its title, and a bad one can mean ruin. Today, in perhaps a too-in-depth article, the Wall Street Journal discusses a specific type of terrible name: the very timely one full of bold claims. As soon as Fred Thompson dropped out of the race for president, The Fred Factor tanked. Then there's the case of Why the Real Estate Boom Will Not Bust — And How You Can Profit From It, by David Lereah. Guess how that one's doing. And sooner or later, either Why the Democrats Will Win in 2008: The Road to an Obama White House or A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win will have to come crashing down the sales charts.
Our question is how they got there in the first place? Why are writers publishing entire books about of-the-moment ideas with shelf lives instead of submitting their work to high-minded quarterly journals and culture magazines, who exist solely to report great, timely ideas? Oh, that's right, we forgot: because banks are shitting the bed every night while print publications frantically try to figure out "this Interweb." Oh well! Everyone start blogging about love; that'll never get old.
Industry hottie Jared Kushner didn't even have the decency to wait one day after his people snarked up a review of WSJ., the new glossy from the Wall Street Journal, before pulling a hat trick and yanking a New York Observer glossy from out of his ass: CONTINUED »
Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan realized very quickly her off-camera remarks on MSNBC — where, during a commercial break, she supposedly declared McCain's campaign "over" — would be getting her into trouble. It took just three hours before her live mic conversation during a segment break with Chuck Todd and Mike Murphy made its way to YouTube, and just a little while longer for her to pull together a half-hearted apology. Why her remarks caused a stir, she says, she "must plead some confusion." Though let us help clarify: Everyone immediately saw her for the two-faced commentator she likely is, supporting conservatives in print while bashing them behind closed doors. But that's not how it was, says Noons! And we're taking her "it's over" comment completely out of context. CONTINUED »
Doesn't Tina Gaudoin know not to serve food during the talking portion of a breakfast — the portion where you want attendees to pay attention to whatever it you're going to be showing on the overhead? Perhaps that explains why the journalists at this morning's meeting to unveil the Wall Street Journal's new glossy — the obnoxiously punctuated WSJ. — weren't paying attention. Or maybe it was because Gaudoin showed them the cover of the magazine: A model wearing a dress made out of the Wall Street Journal. If the meta joke — "We crumpled together all the dignity at the newspaper and came up with this crap!" — fell flat on reporters, just think of all the readers with average household incomes of $265,000 who won't be won over.
Because what an industry of navel gazers needs is another profile of Rupert Murdoch, Vanity Fair's Michael Wolff obliged and produced this piece of journa-schism. Its side effect was a discussion about where the (almost certainly false) rumors of Michael Bloomberg wanting to buy the New York Times began, but more amusing is the brief re-telling of how Murdoch stole the Wall Street Journal away from the Bancroft family with a giant false promise: CONTINUED »
The Wall Street Journal's new luxury magazine WSJ. hits on Sept. 6, and publisher Ellen Asmodeo-Giglio has some good news to announce: Some 51 advertisers have signed on, and 19 are new to the Journal's brands. This is a sure sign there's a future for the upscale title, just like when Conde Nast launched Portfolio and also welcomed a slew of new advertisers to the publisher's roster, only to see the magazine become anemic and thin, while advertisers cut back on their print budgets.
You are looking at a Wall Street Journal headline from yesterday's newspaper. What you might not get from the headline is that instead of posting a $8.86 billion loss, Wachovia will post a $9.11 billion loss. Pennies, right? But there's a reason you didn't get a sense of peril — we're talking a $250 million difference — from the headline: the Journal didn't want you to. When Rupert Murdoch launched the Fox Business Network last year, he promised a "more business friendly" (than CNBC) financial network. And having gobbled up the Journal, it appears Murdoch might be spreading that policy to newsprint. Otherwise, this headline might've read the less wordy, less vague, "Wachovia Admits to Even Wider Loss." [Naked Shorts]
The Wall Street Journal's Amy Chozick is already facing a wave of criticism for using a Yahoo message board to find sources for her "Is Barack Obama too skinny to be president?" article. Now comes a real charge: That what she was actually asking is whether Obama is "too black" to be president. Says Chozick: "I can't even respond to that. That's ridiculous." [Slate]
When journalists need sources, stat, to include in a story they're writing about, say, fall fashions, messy roommates, or whether food stamped with "organic" really influences your grocery shopping decisions, they often turn to ProfNet, the PR Newswire service that connects reporters with people willing to answer questions via email. But when Wall Street Journal reporter Amy Chozick needed to produce a story about whether Barack Obama's physical stature influenced the way voters thought about him, she created her own thread on a Yahoo message board to solicit feedback. And feedback she got — she even included one of the quotes in her article "Too Fit to Be President?: Facing an Overweight Electorate, Barack Obama Might Find Low Body Fat a Drawback." Went the copy: "'I won't vote for any beanpole guy,' [a] Clinton supporter wrote last week on a Yahoo politics message board." What Chozick didn't happen to mention in any of the article's 1,400 words, however, is that the note was posted to her message board thread, which she titled with the loaded question, "Is Obama too skinny to be president?" CONTINUED »
A year ago this month, wedding ring misplacer Rupert Murdoch had set his sights on Dow Jones & Co. and its Wall Street Journal newspaper, successfully clearing the bid with shareholders and leading up to the December closing. At the time, media speculators trashed Murdoch, accusing him of looking to the Journal not to improve its credentials, but to add it his enormous empire of political and business influence. But Wall Street wasn't on board with that scenario; instead, they nudged Murdoch on.
It's a very difference scenario today.
The press is defending Murdoch; even Jack Shafer has nice things to say about his stewardship of the Journal. Meanwhile, Wall Street has trounced News Corp.' stock; it hovers around $14, or 40 percent less than its 52-week high. Something about the instability of the print media market, and Murdoch's insistence on subsidizing any losses with big gains made elsewhere. And then there's the whole Dow Jones part of the equation; where does that thing fit in with, say, MySpace? And what about Murdoch's tendency to treat financial weaknesses in other media companies as a chance to snap 'em up on the cheap? So, so many concerns, this deserves an exposé! CONTINUED »
Next week I’m scheduled to set foot on US soil for the first time in three months. I suppose it’s about time I begin to get reacquainted with my mother nation’s traditions and values, so I’m really happy this article ran in today’s Wall Street Journal, reminding me that America is a place where serious thought is put into whether our politicians are fat enough to be good leaders.
"There is no bad Murdoch. There is no good Murdoch. And [Wall Street Journal managing editor Paul] Steiger knows it. There is only Murdoch." —Jack Shafer, discussing a certain somebody
On Wednesday, Wall Street Journal reporter Elizabeth Holmes, who is tailing John McCain, published an article titled "News Coverage Of Obama Irks McCain Team."
Turns out, not only does news coverage of Barack Obama irk McCain, but news coverage of how much it irks McCain also irks McCain.
Which might explain why, when Holmes identified herself and then asked McCain a question at a press conference, he ignored her. Looks like a certain presidential candidate is starting to feel the same way about the press as another.
This economy stuff is serious! The American dollar is barely worth a Canadian dollar, which means a whole series of jokes are no longer funny. Our housing market — the stuff of the American dream — looks like the face of someone with dioxin poisoning. And Starbucks is closing stores.
We're living in a solemn time. And the Wall Street Journal, Rupert Murdoch's latest plaything, has one way of reflecting it: Updating the headshots of economy kingpins to show just how seriously they're taking things. Here, Citigroup chief Vikram Pandit sees his net worth plummet. Below, treasury secretary Henry Paulson reflects on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. CONTINUED »
"This is not in any way your fault as I’m sure you know or have a sense of, but mine. Could you allow this to just pass, and not do the piece? I would be so grateful."
That was part of an email Peggy Noonan, the Clinton-hating WSJ columnist and one-time Ronald Reagan speechwriter, sent to Women's Wear Daily reporter Jacob Bernstein, who was writing a profile about her — one in which she cooperated. That was until all the question asking was done, and she had a change of heart about the whole thing: "Please don’t be mad at me. I don’t mean to show disrespect for your time, or for you. You are a doll. I have to admit to second thoughts, none of which are connected to you."
Noonan's request that Bernstein kill the profile, sent four weeks after their meeting, of course, was not honored, made evident by the fact that not only did the article — which hinted at a possible job offer from the NYT's op-ed page – run, but it lead with, uh, Noonan's postmortem email plea. CONTINUED »
It must've been a bitter pill for Jack Shafer to swallow when his editor showed him the headline of his column published Friday: "Is the Journal Getting … Better?" To be sure, that's exactly what Shafer is arguing, pulling a 180 after what seems like endless columns where he railed against Rupert Murdoch from the first whispers of his trying to buy the paper from the Bancroft family to his first days as its new owner. But might the biggest foe to balanced journalism actually have made the Wall Street Journal a better paper through his stewardship? CONTINUED »
Editorial Director
