<![CDATA[Civil War At The <i>Wall Street Journal</i> - Gawker Comments]]> <![CDATA[Civil War At The <i>Wall Street Journal</i> - Gawker Comments]]> <![CDATA[Civil War At The <i>Wall Street Journal</i>]]> Their editorial page is such a sucking black hole of suckitude that I hope Newscorp turns WSJ into The Sun by year's end.
Chickens. Roost. Returning flight.

Trai_Dep

]]> <![CDATA[Civil War At The <i>Wall Street Journal</i>]]> Robert Thomson looks like a mortician.

rojac

]]> <![CDATA[Civil War At The <i>Wall Street Journal</i>]]> ...and if anything you understate the fear and loathing toward the invaders over at WSJ HQ!
It didn't start out that way. Many more people at the Journal than has been acknowledged -- so tired of the nepotism, bad management, lack of resources in the bancroft/kann years -- were willing to give these guys the benefit of the doubt.
If Robert is as smart as they say, he'll rediscover his conciliatory side and embrace some of those wsj traditions the News Corp people seem to despise (journalistic ethics, a middle American -- not east coast class!! -- commitment to fairness and doing things right, civility...)



medman

]]> <![CDATA[Civil War At The <i>Wall Street Journal</i>]]> You got it all right this time, Nick. Bravo.
The basic thing here, as you mention in passing, is the cultural clash. People at the FT (and Britain) look down on American (particularly WSJ) journalism as slow, portetuous and pretentious, self-important. From this end what the FT does is fast, unreliable, thinly sourced. Fact is both approaches have their merits. But you don't sense that Robert fully appreciates the difference, much less respects them.
For starters it's the height of arrogance and ignorance -- though par for the course for them in the past four months -- to accuse WSJ reporters of laziness (and arrogance). Sorry -- Journal reporters get their scoops the old fashioned way (mostly -- except for MnA, which tend to be handed over on platters). At the FT, the platter is pretty the only way.
To survive, Robert needs to convince his boss that it is broken and he has the solution. But the only thing he knows well is British journalism, particularly the FT. So he's applying that model to the WSJ with a heavy hammer.
The paper can be jazzed up, sure, and better on politics. But I'm not alone in doubting that American readers want a paper full of short stories about companies or countries they don't care about -- except when done properly in the old, nicely written, fleshed out WSJ feature, something that British papers don't know how to do. (When was the last FT story you read with a real person in it?) What Robert and Rupert also don't seem to realize is that the FT is basically an elite product, the WSJ a middle class as well as money-ed class paper (hence it's 2 million plus readers), and what they say they want to do would, though they don't see it that way, narrow its appeal.
This cultural clash willgo on for a while. Yet the australians didn't fully consider the unintended consequences of being so heavy-handed, so fast, with that institution -- brauchli's defenestration being just the latest thing. This is going to cost them, and the paper....






medman

]]> <![CDATA[Civil War At The <i>Wall Street Journal</i>]]> John Bussey was always very nice to me.

HuntGrunt

]]> <![CDATA[Civil War At The <i>Wall Street Journal</i>]]> Here's the view from inside the Sun King's bunker: the WSJ is over-staffed and, worse, paying absurd salaries to lazy journalists who don't produce anywhere near enough.

This is not a business model that's ever been acceptable within News. It is precisely Thomson's message, though you are right to say that being Pol Pot doesn't come naturally to him. But he knows on which side his bread is buttered, and so he'll play the executioner.

What will happen next is akin to a fat-assed Mid-Westerner joining the Semper Fi fellas in boot camp. First the purge, getting rid of the layers of fat, then re-education before the submission. What will be left: a lean, mean fighting machine. Sir, yes, sir!

If you work on the Journal and want to keep your job, I'd suggest dropping the psuedo-intellectual posturing about the grandness of the institution and start working like you deserve to be there. Harsh, but I'm afraid that's the way life is within the Empire.

ThirdnLong

]]> <![CDATA[Civil War At The <i>Wall Street Journal</i>]]> Waiting for Dave Kansas' name to rise up ... it will ...

BooWahBabe

]]> <![CDATA[Civil War At The <i>Wall Street Journal</i>]]> Has anyone else quit?

Penscribe

]]> <![CDATA[Civil War At The <i>Wall Street Journal</i>]]> I bet, if polled back in the 1980s, a lot of American Communists would have wanted to take the country's most respected business newspaper and ruin it, too.

8Millionth

]]> <![CDATA[Civil War At The <i>Wall Street Journal</i>]]> (My official name is "Grandma Wendy" to distinguish me from the two other Grandmas.)

OMFG Wendy allows that ancient beast to stick her with his peen??? Really????? That's just nauseating on so many levels. Where's my dignity, oh there it is. C'mere an gimme a hug! I love you don't ever leave me!

TheUpMyAssPlayers

]]> <![CDATA[Civil War At The <i>Wall Street Journal</i>]]> @howdydoo: mere anarchy to come no doubt

if_i_only_had_a_heart

]]> <![CDATA[Civil War At The <i>Wall Street Journal</i>]]> when finger pointing and personal offense and people quitting become the order of the day - not newsgathering - then the center cannot hold

howdydoo

]]> <![CDATA[Civil War At The <i>Wall Street Journal</i>]]> Thompson talked to the DC buru on Monday a.m. by phone and I heard it wasn't badly received by reporters. He didn't show much leg on what they have planned for a new ME in terms of timing etc., but he talked about revamping the page one proposal process, which has always been a bitch.

joancollins

]]> <![CDATA[Civil War At The <i>Wall Street Journal</i>]]> "General Robert E. Lee pulled in to Lower Manhattan today..."

famousauthor

]]> <![CDATA[Civil War At The <i>Wall Street Journal</i>]]> it sounds like howell raines and raising the metabolism part deux; does he have a black nursemaid nanny in his past to win a pulitzer for writing about?

if_i_only_had_a_heart

]]> <![CDATA[Civil War At The <i>Wall Street Journal</i>]]> @Maggie: third

real reporting and writing ... wow

if_i_only_had_a_heart

]]> <![CDATA[Civil War At The <i>Wall Street Journal</i>]]> @Sideline Reporter: Really? I'm sure he's already leveraged, securitized and/or bro-hugged his way over to Goldman by now.

lawyergay

]]> <![CDATA[Civil War At The <i>Wall Street Journal</i>]]> Bravo, Nick.

MrInBetween

]]> <![CDATA[Civil War At The <i>Wall Street Journal</i>]]> Best one in the series to date.

midgard

]]> <![CDATA[Civil War At The <i>Wall Street Journal</i>]]> @lawyergay: Ha. You know, one of the guys quoted in that article was fired from Lehman that day.

Sideline Reporter

]]> <![CDATA[Civil War At The <i>Wall Street Journal</i>]]> What does he mean the Journal isn't aggressive at going after the big stories? As far as I could tell, they scooped everyone on the existence of the Bear Stearns lacrosse team.

lawyergay

]]> <![CDATA[Civil War At The <i>Wall Street Journal</i>]]> @McCheeburger: I'll second that.

Maggie

]]> <![CDATA[Civil War At The <i>Wall Street Journal</i>]]> This is a whole lot of awesome. Seriously - you could, and should, write a book on this when all the ashes have settled.

Phyllis Nefler

]]> <![CDATA[Civil War At The <i>Wall Street Journal</i>]]> Sigh. I know so many good people there. This sucks for them.

Larry Bird Flu

]]> <![CDATA[Civil War At The <i>Wall Street Journal</i>]]> Now this is some serious, almost scholarly, gossip. Great reading and great work, Nick.

McCheeburger

]]>