Myrmidonisia
06-06-2007, 13:30
Maybe...I doubt any of you have heard the rumblings, but it's a distinct possibility.
I think the WSJ is the only paper that is sold because of its editorial page. I know that's the first thing I turn to every morning. The rest of the news is targeted in particular areas and I do read what interests me. But it's the editorials that get my closest attention.
Now the Bancroft family, who has owned the paper for the last century, is considering selling it to "News Corp". Of all the family-owned newspapers, they have certainly had the most hands-off approach to the WSJ. If you look at the Grahams or the Sulzbergers at the Post and Times, respectively, the members of those families run those papers. The Bancrofts have hired good editors and let them go.
I hope this isn't my obituary for the WSJ. Murdoch doesn't do anything different than other owners, but that's far more meddling than the current owners of the Journal have ever done. My worry isn't that the Journal will have a bias on the editorial page -- it already does. It is summed up best by a former editor, William Grimes.
"On our editorial page we make no pretense of walking down the middle of the road. Our comments and interpretations are made from a definite point of view. We believe in the individual, in his wisdom and his decency. We oppose all infringements on individual rights, whether they stem from attempts at private monopoly, labor union monopoly or from an overgrowing government. People will say we are conservative or even reactionary. We are not much interested in labels but if we were to choose one, we would say we are radical."
My worst fear is that the Journal will end up like a Gannett paper. With a middle of the road policy that results in an unintelligible mess on the editorial pages. I doubt that would happen under Murdoch, but I would hate to see any compromise of the journalistic integrity that sets the Wall Street Journal apart from all other papers.
I think the WSJ is the only paper that is sold because of its editorial page. I know that's the first thing I turn to every morning. The rest of the news is targeted in particular areas and I do read what interests me. But it's the editorials that get my closest attention.
Now the Bancroft family, who has owned the paper for the last century, is considering selling it to "News Corp". Of all the family-owned newspapers, they have certainly had the most hands-off approach to the WSJ. If you look at the Grahams or the Sulzbergers at the Post and Times, respectively, the members of those families run those papers. The Bancrofts have hired good editors and let them go.
I hope this isn't my obituary for the WSJ. Murdoch doesn't do anything different than other owners, but that's far more meddling than the current owners of the Journal have ever done. My worry isn't that the Journal will have a bias on the editorial page -- it already does. It is summed up best by a former editor, William Grimes.
"On our editorial page we make no pretense of walking down the middle of the road. Our comments and interpretations are made from a definite point of view. We believe in the individual, in his wisdom and his decency. We oppose all infringements on individual rights, whether they stem from attempts at private monopoly, labor union monopoly or from an overgrowing government. People will say we are conservative or even reactionary. We are not much interested in labels but if we were to choose one, we would say we are radical."
My worst fear is that the Journal will end up like a Gannett paper. With a middle of the road policy that results in an unintelligible mess on the editorial pages. I doubt that would happen under Murdoch, but I would hate to see any compromise of the journalistic integrity that sets the Wall Street Journal apart from all other papers.