Wall Street Journal End Days?
My bias in a newspaper is "facts" and "sound editorial arguments." Give me a full page because it generally takes that long to describe a subject with completeness. The New York Times Magazine article about VaR and the financial meltdown was illuminating. The longer section one news articles in the Wall Street Journal also tend to be excellent. (I know because I subscribe.) No matter what biases you come in with, you will find them confirmed and refuted. Television newscasts can never compete with these types of articles because they would take thirty minutes for a newscaster to read.
Conversely, newspapers do a poor job at competing with television at "sound bite" journalism. A sentence or a headline, even well written, is likely to be either misleading or wrong. A television screen showing Obama saying, " I propose $310 billion in tax cuts," conveys more information than the headline "Obama proposes $310 billion in tax cuts." So, it is critically important for newspapers to be very clear about exactly whom is saying exactly what, where, and when.
Lately, the Wall Street Journal has gotten beat up in the blogs. A front page story,"Google Wants Its Own Fast Track on the Web" inspired Lawrence Lessig, who was prominently quoted, to write "The Madeup Dramas of the Wall Street Journal".
Monday, WSJ got beat up for an editorial about the Minnesota Senate Recount. In "Did the Wall Street Journal Fire Their Fact Checkers," Nate Silver counters baseless assertion after baseless assertion with facts. Others weigh in, such as The Minnesota Independent and a member of the canvassing board: Daily Planet. Granted, the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal has always been as "fair and balanced" as Bill O'Reilly on Fox News. Everyone knows you can not quote Bill O'Reilly, but if you say "Wall Street Journal" rather than "Wall Street Journal Editorial Page" your "facts" have some credibility.
More damning on Monday, WSJ gots its facts wrong on page one, making the same error as ABC's The Note. See "ABC's Karl uncritically quoted Cornyn's baseless claim that Schumer "believes" Franken "should be seated without an election certificate" from Media Matters. (I am not sure why Media Matters does not indicate that WSJ reports the same Schumer "quote". My guess would be that ABC borrowed the false quote from WSJ, but the reverse could be true instead.)
Rupert Murdoch now owns both Fox News and the Wall Street Journal.
Maybe the era of Wall Street Journal as a credible newspaper is nearing its end. We will know for sure if we see fewer long form news articles and more unsubstantiated headline "soundbites." Full page news articles about Lawrence Lessig's Creative Commons and the Minnesota recount would be one way WSJ could choose to redeem itself. So far on these topics, WSJ provides short articles, ones that might as well be read on television.
Conversely, newspapers do a poor job at competing with television at "sound bite" journalism. A sentence or a headline, even well written, is likely to be either misleading or wrong. A television screen showing Obama saying, " I propose $310 billion in tax cuts," conveys more information than the headline "Obama proposes $310 billion in tax cuts." So, it is critically important for newspapers to be very clear about exactly whom is saying exactly what, where, and when.
Lately, the Wall Street Journal has gotten beat up in the blogs. A front page story,"Google Wants Its Own Fast Track on the Web" inspired Lawrence Lessig, who was prominently quoted, to write "The Madeup Dramas of the Wall Street Journal".
Monday, WSJ got beat up for an editorial about the Minnesota Senate Recount. In "Did the Wall Street Journal Fire Their Fact Checkers," Nate Silver counters baseless assertion after baseless assertion with facts. Others weigh in, such as The Minnesota Independent and a member of the canvassing board: Daily Planet. Granted, the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal has always been as "fair and balanced" as Bill O'Reilly on Fox News. Everyone knows you can not quote Bill O'Reilly, but if you say "Wall Street Journal" rather than "Wall Street Journal Editorial Page" your "facts" have some credibility.
More damning on Monday, WSJ gots its facts wrong on page one, making the same error as ABC's The Note. See "ABC's Karl uncritically quoted Cornyn's baseless claim that Schumer "believes" Franken "should be seated without an election certificate" from Media Matters. (I am not sure why Media Matters does not indicate that WSJ reports the same Schumer "quote". My guess would be that ABC borrowed the false quote from WSJ, but the reverse could be true instead.)
Rupert Murdoch now owns both Fox News and the Wall Street Journal.
Maybe the era of Wall Street Journal as a credible newspaper is nearing its end. We will know for sure if we see fewer long form news articles and more unsubstantiated headline "soundbites." Full page news articles about Lawrence Lessig's Creative Commons and the Minnesota recount would be one way WSJ could choose to redeem itself. So far on these topics, WSJ provides short articles, ones that might as well be read on television.
Labels: Don't Vote 2012
posted by David Rasmussen at 2:02 PM
<< Home