Gawker
At a farewell party last week, some Journal staffers bitched that Marcus Brauchli, the managing editor pushed out by the paper's new owners, had sold his silence for a generous severance package. "It was disgusting," one told David Carr of the New York Times. But there was some more intriguing scuttlebutt from the event. Brauchli's predecessor Paul Steiger was overheard saying that Rupert Murdoch's lieutenants were looking externally for a replacement atop the newspaper. The name Steiger mentioned: Andrew Ross Sorkin, the Times' blue-eyed mergers and acquisitions correspondent.
Now, we don't actually believe that Sorkin's a serious candidate for the managing editor role. At 31, Sorkin is less than half the age that Steiger was when he retired from the position last year; Brauchli himself was deemed young for the job when he took over from Steiger at the age of 46. And Sorkin, though credited for the success of the Times' Deal Book finance email newsletter, has little experience as a manager. Steiger may have been misheard; or simply caught up in the swirl of ill-informed gossip that has gripped the Journal since Brauchli's defenestration.
But Robert Thomson, the former editor of Murdoch's London Times before the Australian media mogul dropped him in as publisher of the Journal, has indeed reached out to Sorkin, for some undefined role. (Thomson is pictured here, above Sorkin.)
Here's why Sorkin is actually more plausible a candidate than he looks. First, in the highly competitive UK, where Thomson has spent most of his newspaper career, editors tend to assume responsibility much earlier in their careers. Thomson's successor at the London Times, James Harding, was just 38 years old. Piers Morgan, now reduced to American trash television, was just 28 when made editor of Murdoch's News of the World.
Second, Sorkin has a powerful reputation for breaking business scoops. With excellent contacts among the acquisition advisers who dole out deal stories, Sorkin has pretty much singlehandedly made the New York Times a force on the crucial M&A beat. The Journal no longer has the monopoly it once possessed over day-before news of big deals. One measure of Sorkin's value as a scoop-getter: he's among the most highly paid reporters at the Times, earning about $200,000 per annum.
Finally, the Times reporter, having spent so much time in the company of bankers and executives, has much more understanding of business dictates managers than his peers. Sorkin was one of the reporters most supportive of Murdoch's bold bid for Dow Jones, the Journal's parent company. While Sorkin's articles in the Times rehearsed the traditional criticisms of the tycoon's record as a proprietor, he concluded: "Mr. Murdoch may be the perfect publisher of The Wall Street Journal." Murdoch may well return the sentiment.
We've argued before that the Journal, like many other sclerotic American newspaper organizations, might benefit from a generational change. But it is not as if the newspaper has nurtured that many young editors. If Robert Thomson is determined to raise the metabolism of the Journal, to use Howell Raines' expression, he may be forced to bring in talent from outside. And that will be even more depressing for career Journal editors than last week's putsch. It is galling to report to someone younger; or to an outsider; a manager who has both those characteristics would be positively unbearable.
Comments
He's like 30 and cute, so why not.
there are a lot of people here at wsj who have schemed and connived their way to the top. many of them are bureau chiefs and deputy bureau chiefs and they've done a lot of nasty things to insert themselves in those positions. and now they are fast discovering that it has all been for naught.
I call bullshit. If Murdoch is looking for a change in direction at the WSJ and more general news, Sorkin is not someone you'd bring on.
The idea of harming Times M&A coverage is interesting tho. The WSJ still tries to trade prime space in exchange for M&A exclusives. That space isn't as meaningful it used to be to companies with the greater attention paid to M&A and the wider array of business news sources available. They may think they can gain some of that leverage back and harm the ol' grey lady in the process.
okay but who's he sleeping with/has slept with/is planning on sleeping with? come now, mr. denton, this chart of yours doesn't update itself and the calligrapher will be in this evening...
Murdoch really wants Aaron Sorkin, but the emails got crossed.
Nick, this was an excellent piece, as was your examination last week of Brauchli (is that pronounced Broccoli?) and the rest of the WSJ brass.
I wonder if the Times would counteroffer anything - I would think Sorkin would be a large loss for them.
@howdydoo: Any good stories you want to share?
@the supergoddess: Sorkin is married to Pilar Queen. I think they won Altarcations about a year ago.
@the supergoddess: Way to put on the Scottish thumbscrews!
@Phyllis Nefler: what could they counter-offer though? I mean, the top job at the journal is the top job at the journal - unless the times wants to, like, sell sorkin ownership of the paper I don't see much that can best being offered ME of the WSJ.
(AND LOOK SIR! I'M BEING SOCRATIC!)
also that thompson fellow continues to be unnecessarily terrifying.
when I worked in legal/financial PR, I talked to Andrew pretty regulary (phone and email) about deals being announced, etc. he was totally nice -- way easier for a scared little PR-girl to deal with than some other reporters. now I kind of want to tap that.
@Bell County: you remembered! I know I was totally risking another tantrum with that, but sometimes I can't help myself.
@parkavepeer: @GeneralLeigh: thank you for answering my first and third questions.
@the supergoddess: I know - there's really not much they could do, is there. And if he's getting paid that much already, they might be maxing out.
BTW, DealBook is great, but the FierceFinance newsletter has some juicier deets, if you ask me. They just aren't FIRST!!!!!11 like DealBook is.
There is no way Sorkin is being recruited to be the next editor of the WSJ. Even Rupe isn't that stupid. The Sork has zero editing experience and the 40-somethings and 50-somethings who have carried the shit buckets at the WSJ would stage a full-out riot. However, I have no doubt that Thomson & Co. might be coveting Sork, and if his salary is, as you say, in the $200k range (I doubt it, by the way), the News Corp. crew could easily afford to top it. But even this scenario is unlikely: As I understand it, the Murdoch-led WSJ is 0-for-Stealing Talent From The NYT.
I'd hit that (sorry -- again couldn't help it).
Sorkin is newly married. Would the Journal give him a more predictable schedule? Would he want that?
Why is there an implication that the WSJ does not nuture its own reporters? In your list of possible winners and losers, I believe a quick google search would show that most got there start at the WSJ as young reporters.
I hear Nick Denton is in the running for ME. He's got the FT thing, the (sort of) British thing, Oxford (like Murdoch), a stint in the sticks (somewhere Mitteleuropean), business and management chops, he agrees American journalism (no matter that it's a world beater by far -- who takes anything a British rag writes seriously???) is sclerotic (like Thomson), he's New Media, New Blood, New WSJ. That's far more "plausible" than Sorkin or any other names you throw out there. Actually, why not? There I've started a rumor. And it could be as true as anything else you've reported
I hear Dave Kansas is a top top candidate for ME.
By the way, Secret Diary of Steve Jobs makes a good point. The Journal dissenters are disgusted that Brauchli won't speak out against Murdoch. But they themselves will only talk off the record, to Carr.
"Curiously, however, those brave Journal hacks all speak on condition of anonymity. Not a single one will put his name to his bashing. Yes, O noble Journal hacks, O defenders of freedom of speech -- speak to us about what is disgusting. Like stabbing your boss in the back, smearing his reputation and scurrying away into the dark like a pack of rats, maybe? And you wonder why people hate the media?"
[fakesteve.blogspot.com]
Comment on this post
Reply by EmailLogin with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.
Forgot your username or password? New User?