Media Curmudgeon: WSJ Lodged In 1926

« The “New York Times' Newest Serious Problem | Main | Lincoln Center Theater Cares »

November 23, 2009

WSJ Lodged In 1926

Guest blogger Paul Talbot responds to guest blogger Bill Grimes about the Wall Street Journal.

Despite its efforts to contemporize, the Journal’s editorial position remains lodged in 1792 or 1926. The ghosts of Andrew Hamilton and Calvin Coolidge float off every page. Fortunately, the paper publishes one fine editorial each year, which, hopefully, we’ll be able to read once again this coming Wednesday.

The focus group-spawned efforts to contemporize the WSJ are reminiscent of Frank Sinatra circa 1967, sliding into a lemon-colored Nehru jacket and brushing what was left of his hair down over his forehead. Just not happening.

A piece on Heidi Klum back on the catwalk? Seems as if there’s a bit of TMZ envy at the WSJ.

As we consider the expanded collection of stories the WSJ does publish, let’s consider the stories it does not publish. Which backwaters of America it has no interest in. Which shibboleths of conservatism and business go largely unexamined.

Would the Journal’s editorial content be stronger without the broken-down parade of disgruntled supply-siders in search of redemption and relevance? Can we get the hook for these sad attempts to prop up Sarah Palin?

Unfortunately, the Journal’s makeover, certainly costlier than Ms. Palin’s, doesn’t seem to have softened the shrill tone of the paper, which is largely lacking in compassion and remains dismissive of human frailties.

So you’re a 28 year-old single mom working nights at an Arby’s in Jackson, Mississippi and you’re strangled with credit card debt because you bought that Samsung 46” LCD HDTV at Wal-Mart? Well, tough luck, you should have known better. Instead of watching Mo-Nique on BET you should be reading Benjamin Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor.” And don’t worry about usury laws, the free market will sort out your interest payments. Just keep your job and save your money.

Of course, the Journal is an essential, credible, exemplary, ingredient both in the American discourse and American journalism.

But it needs to proceed with caution. Headlining a collection of pieces of health care issues under the umbrella “ObamaCare” is pejorative, inaccurate, and cutesy. There is no need for the Journal to squander its credibility with these kinds of tawdry Murdoch tabloid trappings.

And Heidi Klum and Calvin Coolidge make for strange content bedfellows.

Posted by Charles Warner at November 23, 2009 8:06 AM

Comments

Bruce Braun at November 24, 2009 6:42 PM writes:

Relegating the WSJ editorial to 1792 and 1926 begs the question of what should the WSJ be saying on its editorial pages? What should the WSJ's content consist of? Heidi Klum is Ok by me, from time to time.

If in fact, Murdoch is now targeting NYT readers for the WSJ, the only way he will be able to attract them is to provide content and editorial that those people are attracted to or they believe the NYT is not providing. Given the readership of the NYT and the WSJ are both way above average in terms of education and incomes, I doubt Murdoch would be successful with what is being characterized as tabloid approach with the WSJ. You don't alienate a big core audience to go after another audience of smaller size.

The Journal started as and still is a publication targeted at business people and not 28 year-old single mom working nights at an Arby’s. That audience is Oprah's.

Would rubber stamp approval or endorsement of government policies and actions be more acceptable on the WSJ editorial page? The WSJ was conservative editorially way before Rupert bought it. Frankly, I prefer to see the same sort of criticism of our current administration in the same way I liked the way the NYT treated Bush. We have a political class in this country that sees itself as essentially free from accountability other than at re-election time. If any of us had a spouse that spent our money the way this Congress has been doing and taking out loans that would bankrupt us, all the while bitching at us that we should give that spouse more money to spend, how long would we stay married to that person? It began with Social Security, which was supposed to be for retirement. If you check your latest statement from Social Security, just take a look at how much you've put in and how much you can expect to take out beginning at age 62. Assuming we make it to a ripe old age, the SS payments will at best be around 50% of what your contributions were. Should business people and the 28 year-old Mom be concerned about that sort of Government scam? Bernie Madoff ran a similar one before he was caught.

Murdoch certainly puts his imprint on his publications as it is his prerogative to do. That the WSJ uses the term "ObamaCare" is not pejorative. The fact that healthcare reform is a 2000+ page piece of legislation that is the pillar of President Obama's administration and of a Democratic Party controlled Congress, makes it easy to assign a name like ObamaCare to it. And why not? It is Mr. Obama's administration policy centerpiece. I doubt the WSJ was the first and not the only news entity that uses the term.

Media Curmudgeon

November 23, 2009

WSJ Lodged In 1926

Comments

Post a comment