dow jones - Gawker

posts about #dowjones more →
Is the Wall Street Journal Bleeding Cash?
Dow Jones Industrial Average Reportedly for Sale
Dow Jones Chief to Stiff British Parliament
WSJ Editor Slams 'Brain Dead' Times Readers
"Wall Street" Part of Wall Street Journal Increasingly Meaningless
WSJ Doesn't Mention Own Company's Market-Crashing Error
Schwab held $85 million in bad Lehman, WaMu debt
Barry Diller's finance site: "Completely pointless"
WSJ Excited To Exploit Financial Catastrophe
The bubble in personal-finance websites

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

MCWHAMMER
10/14/09

In reply to Is the Wall Street Journal Bleeding Cash?
I hope you fellas watch the Rotten Tomatoes show with Brett Erlich. It's delightful... my favorite feature is probably "Weekend Peekend"... and not just because of the awesome name. Frankly I love the theme music for that segment, which I can't quite place.
Reply

Edited by MCWHAMMER at 10/14/09 10:09 PM MCWHAMMER was starred MCWHAMMER was unstarred

goetz
10/14/09

In reply to Is the Wall Street Journal Bleeding Cash?
Do I hear five? Five staffers? Give this story another half hour and they'll have it down to a part-time intern and SmarterChild.
Reply

goetz was starred goetz was unstarred

Gabriel Snyder
10/14/09

@goetz: It's actually just three. The two guys on the left are in fact the same person.
Reply

Gabriel Snyder was starred Gabriel Snyder was unstarred

NotChoinski
10/14/09

In reply to Is the Wall Street Journal Bleeding Cash?
The Dow is just lapping 9,999.

Stock Tease.
Reply

NotChoinski was starred NotChoinski was unstarred

wrongneighborhood
10/14/09

In reply to Is the Wall Street Journal Bleeding Cash?
Business Insider just updated this story to say "less than 10 people" work on this show. I guess WSJ has only one dedicated staffer for the show as well.
Reply

wrongneighborhood was starred

raincoaster
07/14/09

In reply to Dow Jones Chief to Stiff British Parliament
I honestly, seriously, have NO idea why this is a story now. Guido Fawkes covered it extensively when it first broke, what, a year and a half ago?

Knowing the Guardian, there has to be some literally political or media/political reason to scream this from the rooftops at this particular point. Guardianistas smell blood in the water and are circling Coulson, waiting for the kill? Does it have something (or maybe everything) to do with Rebekah Wade's recent career moves?
Reply

raincoaster was starred raincoaster was unstarred

raincoaster
07/14/09

@raincoaster: I also find it fascinating who's been named as a victim and who has not, such as Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, who had some problems with his cellphone rather inconveniently just before announcing his candidacy.
Reply

raincoaster was starred raincoaster was unstarred

m4ximusprim3
07/13/09

In reply to Dow Jones Chief to Stiff British Parliament
Gotta love the british understatement of "inviting" him to speak. In murrica, he'd be "invited" with a subpoena and a baseball bat.
Reply

m4ximusprim3 was starred m4ximusprim3 was unstarred

Hydroceph
04/30/09

In reply to WSJ Editor Slams 'Brain Dead' Times Readers
That's OK. The editors of the The Economist think the readers of both are tools.
Reply

Hydroceph was starred Hydroceph was unstarred

depardoo
04/30/09

In reply to WSJ Editor Slams 'Brain Dead' Times Readers
I suspected the WSJ was on the road to ruin the day it used the same front page color photo of Alex Rodriquez as appeared on the cover of the NY Post. And the Post headline read "A-Hole". A color photo of a sports figure on the cover page of the WSJ? Trouble.
Reply

depardoo was starred depardoo was unstarred

Mediahohoho
04/30/09

In reply to WSJ Editor Slams 'Brain Dead' Times Readers
I'd like to take a look at the pink sheet to see how many of their copies are due to bulk sales, how many go unread in magazine dorms, etc. Not saying they're lying, but hey, it is Murdoch. Ethics isn't exactly his forte.
Reply

Mediahohoho was starred Mediahohoho was unstarred

ChillbearLatrigue
04/30/09

In reply to WSJ Editor Slams 'Brain Dead' Times Readers
I really could care less if WSJ is mean about there success. I have a few ideas why it the Wall Street Journal is doing well in the face of the declining industry.

1) The Wall Street Journal consistently practices journalistic ethics. They may not have an breaking new story every week, but they also don't have to print apology articles a few days after they "scoop" other papers.

2) The WSJ doesn't give away their online content. I read the NYT on my iPhone for free, which benefits me and nets the Times no money. I wouldn't buy a copy of the Times otherwise, but a lot of other people would.

3) Growth of sales in a financial newspaper may be a reflection of the tough economic times. While the NYT actually has a very excellent business section, the paper is not famous for its financial reporting. If there was a plague, more people might be drawn to The New England Journal of Medicine. I know I bought more issues of Scientific American when the ethanol canard and global warming "crisis" started to become topical.

I think that I missed the "brutal attack" on rivals in this memo. I guess it would be insensitive to say to an editor of the NYT's, but this was supposed to be an internal document. The article makes it sound like Thomson's memo was somehow more provocative than printing this in an editorial page.
Reply

ChillbearLatrigue was starred

momof3wildkids
04/30/09

@ChillbearLatrigue: I especially agree with point 2. Free content online will be a thing of the past in the not to distant future for both magazines and newspapers. Online ad revenues are minimal.

Not a fan of Murdoch, but he was right to charge for online access to WSJ (though it took him a while to get there). If a newspaper doesn't value its content enough to charge for it, it probably isn't worth reading. This is already beginning to happen with medical journals and other periodicals.

Point 1 is also very true.

BTW, the WSJ has a fabulous wine column.
Reply

momof3wildkids was starred momof3wildkids was unstarred

DennyCrane
04/30/09

@ChillbearLatrigue: Sadly, I don't believe accuracy (or lack thereof) actually has an effect on subscriber numbers. Nor do I think the WSJ is that much more accurate than other papers nationwide (except the NYT, which is a hot mess).
Reply

DennyCrane was starred DennyCrane was unstarred

PandoraSpocks
04/30/09

@momof3wildkids: "Free content online will be a thing of the past in the not to distant future for both magazines and newspapers." That's one scenario. The other is magazines drop the print version, try to make us pay online and discover we won't and disappear altogether.@ChillbearLatrigue: And it is a very well written memo, unlike most internal docs at the other papers.
Reply

PandoraSpocks was starred PandoraSpocks was unstarred

ethylic
04/30/09

In reply to WSJ Editor Slams 'Brain Dead' Times Readers
ABC stats, with no bull, spin, gawker snark, etc:

Daily circulation at The New York Times dropped 3.5% to 1,039,031. The Times' Sunday circulation was down 1.7% to 1,451,233.

Daily circulation at The Wall Street Journal was up a fraction 0.6% to 2,082,189.

New York's Daily News was off 14% in circ, but rival New York Post lost even more, at minus 20%.

Newscorp owns WSP and NYP. You gain some, you lose a shitload more.

[www.editorandpublisher.com]
Reply

ethylic was starred ethylic was unstarred

Nicholas Carlson
04/30/09

@ethylic: Right, but the WSJ double its subscription discounting in the past year.

Though I'm sure the NYT has too…
Reply

Nicholas Carlson was starred Nicholas Carlson was unstarred

MediaZombie
04/30/09

In reply to WSJ Editor Slams 'Brain Dead' Times Readers
I've heard rumors about bundles of extra WSJ's being given to newspaper distributors in an attempt to increase circulation numbers.
Reply

MediaZombie was starred MediaZombie was unstarred

DennyCrane
04/30/09

@MediaZombie: Rumors? Fuck, all you have to do is walk around Herald Square.
Reply

DennyCrane was starred DennyCrane was unstarred

Darehead
12/07/08

In reply to "Wall Street" Part of Wall Street Journal Increasingly Meaningless
Y'alls Twitt Urinal?
Reply

Darehead was starred Darehead was unstarred

cassandra
12/07/08

In reply to "Wall Street" Part of Wall Street Journal Increasingly Meaningless
Thomson is Australian, not British. I'm not sure how that affects your illusory "wiliness" matrix but it's worth getting it right.
Reply

cassandra was starred cassandra was unstarred

Vivien Smith-Smythe-Smith
12/07/08

@cassandra: Have you been to Australia? It's teeming with lethal animals; you can't help but grow up wily. It's a survival tactic.
Reply

naugahydeinplainsight
10/30/08

In reply to WSJ Doesn't Mention Own Company's Market-Crashing Error
Turd on the Street
Reply

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

SUBSCRIBE TO Gawker

Login

Reset Password

Register

Submit Your Comment