I’ve subscribed to the Wall Street Journal more or less continuously for the last five years, mostly because I share with the editorial staff a conviction that the key our country’s greatness is the concept of “free minds and free markets.” Although the Op-Ed page has a certain point of view, it’s quite up front about it and none of that bleeds over into the news reporting itself – a rather unique claim to fame, these days.
It’s also been said that WSJ’s op-ed page is the only such feature in the mass media which actually sells the rest of the paper rather than the other way around. That’s demonstrably true for a guy like me who has trouble sifting through a balance sheet, doesn’t trade in bonds and never can quite remember the difference between a put and a call.
So I’ve been watching with some concern the sale of the paper by the majority-owning Bancroft family to Rupert Murdoch’s Newscorp. In a world of free enterprise, people have a right to sell their property to whomever they choose of course, but Murdoch’s commitment to journalistic excellence and editorial independence has heretofore gone unremarked upon.
All of this is not to share in presidential candidate John Edwards’ gloomy expectation that Something Ought to be Done, and that it’s government’s job to do it:
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is calling on Democrats to oppose News Corp.
dear sir–
subliminal navy mispelling of principal’s name in paragraph 3?
best regards and many thanks
marc
We’ve been getting the WSJ for years. The rest of the paper is on the liberal side – many times they have a “sky is falling” attitude about the economy (although more centrist than any other paper).
I got ticked and wrote to them once about one of their articles… it was in the “Weekend” section. The person writing a piece on lawn furniture (of all things) managed to work in a nasty dig at the President and the VP!!! I told them, either stick with the topic or put the furniture article on the op-ed page. Sheesh!
It will be interesting to see what happens.
Guy used to work for me, Marc – thanks for the catch
Well, Rupert paid $5 billion (with a B) over the market value for WSJ. Wouldn’t make much sense to muck around in the works when it’s chugging along nicely and actually turning a profit, compared to other big name brands.
I too read the opinionjournal regularly — don’t actually read newspapers at all anymore what with not much time. I hope they don’t change their style or philosophy with this ownership change. But Murdoch seems a sensible sort and not likely to want to lose money, so it seems a safe bet it will remain independent as it is for a (hopefully) long while.
P3, you beat me to the punch. One does not pay a premium price to then destroy the brand, not intentionally. Murdoch is a savvy guy. He’s looking at convergence.
I get that same email every morning Lex. Good stuff. Remember that the WSJ is just a vehicle and that those editorialists and commenters can write and publish anywheres in this here blogosphere. Right?
Agree with Casca. I don’t think Murdoch will screw with anything that makes $$. Unlike the WaPo/NYTs/LATs, the WSJ actually does.
re that Metrosexual Edwards. It’s a free country. He can call for a boycott of anything. Who does he think he is? Jessee Jackson, Jr.? Sorry Johnny, there already is one.
b2
My husband and I have been subscribing to WSJ for 30 years or so, and in an increasingly non-centrist media world, it is the newspaper which seems to strive for objectivity and make some effort to tell us who-what-where-when-why with some accuracy. God knows, The Houston Chronicle [the only daily newspaper in our town,the 4th largest city in the US] is totally unable to do so. As one of the increasingly successful newspapers in the downward-sliding dead tree media, the WSJ should be treasured by its new owners. And I think it will be. Murdoch is a shrewd old guy, after all. You don’t kill the best layer in the henhouse, or try to introduce her to a New Best Friend.
Marianne Matthews
That’s not very “Democratic” of the DEMOCRAT presidential candidate John Edwards.
John Edwards wasn’t exactly celebrated in WSJ previous to this episode; he has little to lose. He’s probably just sore that George Soros’ bid for the paper failed…
“Free minds and free markets are inextricably intertwined – a democratic government must let people draw their own conclusions and make the choices which flow from that understanding rather than trying to limit what they hear to politically attractive “right think.”
Are you sure you didn’t mean “politically attractive ‘left think’”, Lex? Hey, I told you its been a long day!
Hey Lex, can I take the silky pony across the equator? Please, please!?!?!??!
Oh, oh, and across the Arctic Circle, too, Glenn?
That would be priceless!
We were long time subscribers to the WSJ. When they started pressing their illegal immigrant point of view we dropped our subscription. I can’t say I regret it. I can get market theory at any number of free sites. Considering what it cost us to subscribe to the dead tree edition of the WSJ, it didn’t make any sense. Even though, they continued to deliver the paper t our driveway for about 9 months. It got so that it was just one other piece of trash we needed to deal with. Just last week, the deliveries stopped. Thank God!