SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Paper Shredder

POLITICS MAY 9, 2008

Paper Shredder

Shortly after nine in the morning on April 28, about two dozen reporters and editors in The Wall Street Journal’s Washington bureau assembled for the weekly staff meeting led by the D.C. bureau chief, John Bussey. Seated on couches in the bureau’s wood-paneled parlor, the staffers waited to begin a conference call with Robert Thomson, the Journal’s publisher.The mood was uncomfortable. Only a week had passed since the paper’s managing editor, Marcus Brauchli, had resigned under pressure from Rupert Murdoch, chairman of the Journal’s corporate parent, News Corp. Brauchli’s decision to accept millions of dollars in return for signing a non-disclosure agreement had triggered paroxysms of anger inside the Journal newsroom. “We’re a business newspaper, so we know a sell-out when we see one,” one angry Journal staffer told me.With Brauchli’s ouster, Thomson, who was appointed by Murdoch in December 2007, is now acting as both publisher and de facto managing editor, at least until Murdoch selects a replacement. The conference call, along with nearly a dozen similar meetings with Journal employees that week, was part of an effort to communicate to the editorial staff Murdoch’s unfolding plans for the paper.Since News Corp. completed the $5 billion takeover of the paper last year, Murdoch has signaled his desire for the Journal to be a conservative paper of record to rival The New York Times, hoping to serve business-minded readers who want a single source of news, be it the meltdown at Bear Stearns, floods in the Midwest, or a car bombing in Baghdad. On the call, according to staffers who participated, Thomson reiterated his and Murdoch’s interest in international and political coverage and praised a page-one piece about Bill Clinton’s increasing presence on the campaign trail, which ran in April, as the type of story he likes.But many Journal staffers remain confused over where Murdoch is taking the paper and whether, as a business proposition, a Journal that tries to be all things to all people will risk ceding finance-focused readers to the resurgent Financial Times or even the invigorated business section in The New York Times. As one Journal staffer puts it: “The only question people were really interested in is, ‘What the fuck is going on?’ ”In recent weeks, a rough portrait of Murdoch’s Journal has emerged. According to staffers who attended Thomson’s presentations, he explained that Murdoch wants the Journal to carry more news, shorter stories, snappier headlines, and increasing political and general-interest coverage (Thomson recently added four pages for international stories to the paper’s front section). In late April, for example, the paper ran a pair of news stories on the Mississippi River floods, which one staffer notes would have been uncommon just months ago. When Murdoch made a surprise visit to the Journal’s D.C. bureau on March 7, he told staffers that the paper should cover non-business stories like the Virginia Tech shooting or the Minneapolis bridge collapse. Recently, to augment its general-assignment reporting muscle, the Journal poached Los Angeles Times reporter Stephanie Simon and New York Times reporter Leslie Eaton. In a meeting with the Weekend Journal staff on April 25, Thomson also discussed the idea of tapping marquee writers, such as Ian Buruma, to write long essays for the paper’s Saturday edition.Murdoch has taken a keen interest in the Washington bureau. Already, the bureau has added two additional staffers, hiring Susan Schmidt and Elizabeth Williamson from The Washington Post. And, one week in April, the Journal’s veteran political reporter Jackie Calmes scored three front-page bylines, a feat she says she had never before accomplished in her 18-year career at the paper. “At the Journal, the politics coverage was always the stepchild,” Calmes says. “Now I feel, for the first time, that I’m part of the core coverage.”But the push for more spot news has left many staffers concerned over the fate of the Journal’s signature front-page features, which are often investigative pieces running more than 2,000 words. In the past, reporters often spent days crafting story memos and shaping story ideas even before presenting them to editors. But, in the conference call with the D.C. bureau on April 28, Thomson signaled that story memos shouldn’t run longer than 400 words, leaving some to surmise he’s less interested in long-form narrative. During another telephone exchange with the Journal’s bureau chiefs the next day, Thomson dismissed speculation that Murdoch was planning to kill the “A-Hed,” the quirky human-interest columns that have covered topics from the difficulty of spelling the word “millennium” (during the y2k craze) to feuding hair salons in Detroit. In response to a question about how far along Murdoch was in his campaign to reinvent the Journal, Thomson said, “we’re a six to seven on a scale of ten,” according to one participant on the call.Thomson has also raised the specter that there would soon be a restructuring of the editing ranks. “They want a much more reporter-driven paper,” one staffer says. Historically, the Journal has stood apart for its ranks of editors and bureau chiefs, who closely supervised teams of reporters and shepherded copy up the chain of command to New York. While Thomson didn’t provide a specific number, Journal staffers speculate that as many as 40 to 60 editors could be laid off or reassigned. A Dow Jones spokesperson declined to comment.Thomson has dealt with newsroom upheaval before. In March 2002, Murdoch appointed him to run the Times of London, where he refashioned the 217-year-old broadsheet into a hard-charging tabloid. A native Australian like Murdoch, Thomson can be disdainful of critiques from the journalistic establishmentBut he’s also appeared to show disdain for the paper he’s manning now. After Murdoch named the 47-year-old publisher of the Journal in December, some staffers sensed that Thomson approached the job not with respect for the institution but with a kind of condescension and a relish for changing it. “It seems as if he has a grudge against the Journal. He tried to take us down a notch,” one staffer says, recounting an April 28 meeting Thomson held with the staff of the Money and Investing section.In his call with the bureau chiefs on April 29, Thomson said that Murdoch intends to announce a new managing editor within weeks, not months. Thomson has told staffers that he wants a “renaissance man” and a reporter with extensive overseas experience. Journal staffers say that the leading internal candidates are D.C. bureau chief Bussey, Money and Investing editor Nick Deogun, and assistant managing editor Alan Murray.Many staffers believe Murdoch will look externally to fill the top newsroom slot. Last month, Gawker floated the idea that New York Times mergers and acquisitions reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin is a possible candidate. Many Journal staffers dismiss the rumor, and the source of the idea turns out to be Vanity Fair media columnist Michael Wolff, who is writing a book about Murdoch and the Journal. (Wolff confirms that he had heard the tip “from a couple of people” and passed it on.)Still, whenever the announcement is made, staffers understand where power resides in the newsroom. “No matter who is chosen,” one staffer says, “it’s likely Thomson will be pulling the strings.”

Gabriel Sherman is a special correspondent for The New Republic.

By Gabriel Sherman

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 17 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

17 comments

"[S]horter stories, snappier headlines, and increasing . . . general-interest coverage. Yep, that's all we need. Short attention span, superficial TV-style news in print. That sort of thing wasn't the Journal's bag and I don't know why Murdoch should think the paper is the appropriate vehicle to counter the NY Times. But he doesn't care if he destroy the WSJ. What an asshole.

- tec619

May 9, 2008 at 7:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Murdoch appears to be inclined to make the WSJ a paper of record for "the rest of us" outside the financial service sector -- the prerogative of a publisher/owner. I personally would applaud a rebalancing of content to include more generalist global news. But it's also Murdoch's prerogative to dumb down the Journal, as he's done repeatedly in his media empire in search of broader readership. This is smart business but bad journalism, a painful reminder of the irreconcilable conflict intrisic to the newspaper industry. The Sulzberger clan is fighting its own version of this battle over at the New York Times. If there's any lesson to be learned here, it may be that public ownership is inappropriate for a media company whose primary objective is journalistic excellence.

- nh14

May 9, 2008 at 8:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That must be some deal the Bancrofts struck. Despite all the backroom negotiating and resistance from numerous family members, it looks like the WSJ will become exactly what the Bancrofts feared and everyone knew it would become once Rupert got his grubby little hands on it - another POS tabloid.

- csmiller

May 9, 2008 at 11:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

nh14, I respectfully disagree that it is smart business The WSJ commands a premium price because of its long articles, combined with the quirky ones. That is why it attracts such a broad & educated audience. It is what first hooked me. If the Journal abandons their bread & butter, and challenges the NYT, , I among others will just skip it. Why buy the second best, when I can buy the best? And for cultural coverage and business coverage , the WSJ runs behind the Financial Times. The distinguishing feature of the WSJ is the long, in-depth article. Seemingly Thompson is marginalizing the feature that has been rewarding it for years. Shockingly stupid behavior Thus, Murdoch strategy runs risk of losing his well heeled consumer base, along with its advertisers this who covet this demographic. Frankly, I am just not convinced that Thompson knows how to create a newspaper of quality. A NY Post, yes, but even the Post has lost is cache, and is now tired, snarky & predictable The Journal has historically praised the ‘creative destructiveness of capitalism’. I see the destructiveness in recent change; I see very little that qualifies as creative

-

May 9, 2008 at 11:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is a story about there not being a story, at least so far. Does it really matter if WSJ stories are shorter and snappier? No, the big issue, the issue that matters, is whether Murdoch is trying to turn the WSJ into the Fox News of newspapers, i.e., biased reporting under the banner of a big, once-upon-a-time mainstream media name. Nothing much of what's in Gabriel Sherman's piece is evidence that Murdoch is carrying out this transformation. Had Sherman's piece been about whether we're seeing the first stages of that, that would have been a story.

- Mike

May 9, 2008 at 12:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What galls me is that Marcus Brauchli walked away with millions of dollars that aren't his. The only reason Murdoch paid Brauchli so much more than a normal severance--perhaps a year's salary--is because of the residue of leverage Brauchli retained based on the years of dedicated work by all of us at the WSJ who didn't sell out. Murdoch paid Brauchli off so he would leave without "acrimony"--Marcus's word. The only reasonable thing for Brauchli to do now is to donate at least half of his ill-gotten hush money to a worthy journalism cause such as the Committee to Protect Journalists. It's not his money to keep!!

- Journal-ist

May 9, 2008 at 1:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So this is a public trust now? It's capitalism, baby, he can do with anything he damn well please. Whinging journos, I tell ya...

- twakum

May 9, 2008 at 1:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you for writing this article. I too have been absolutely appalled at the way they are destroying the Wall Street Journal. It used to be jam packed with Financial News Stories. Now the headlines are general news I can get in the NY Times or on the internet. Instead of the cool dot pics they've gone to the cheesy photos. They ruined the editorial page. It's an absolutely catastrophe. The problem is I don't know where else to go for that kind of news. Thanks mentioning the Financial Times. I'll try that.

- NY Journal Reader

May 9, 2008 at 1:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Rupert Murdoch's legacy as a promoter of the FOX mentality ("punch" over profundity; sensationalism over scruples) has been long-since cemented. If the A-Hed is in triage and the paper skews more political than practical, the Journal and its 200+ years falls with it. A neo-conservative version of the NY Times? Cancel my subscription.

- William

May 9, 2008 at 1:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There was a comment questioning my contention that Murdoch's WSJ makeover may be good business but bad journalism. Not surprisingly, many responders (including myself) are current WSJ readers who would sorely miss the in-depth coverage that the Journal has so capably delivered. But the changes Murdoch has in mind are not aimed at you and me. It's at the far greater population of NON-readers who consider the current format too narrow-focused, too technical and decidedly too boring. The fact is, the Journal has been stuck in a long, agonizingly slow decline in daily readership, currently hovering around 2 million per day. Whether you would like it or not, suppose by abandoning its journalistic roots, News Corp. can pick up 3 readers for every one it loses,with commensurate growth in advertising and cross selling into other News Corp. channels. I don't know this to be the case, but I figure Murdoch has done some hard thinking along these lines before agreeing to pony up $5B for an underperforming asset. Keep in mind that News Corp. has significantly outperformed the NYT Corporation over the past several years. The Times may get high marks for jounalistic integrity, but its been at the expense of lousy returns to investors. So you may not like the Murchoch's agenda as a reader, but before you accuse him of being stupid or worse, keep in mind, he's proven himself to be a shrewd businessman with an uncompromising commitment to making money. As I noted earlier, there is an intrinsic conflict between trying to please disriminating readers and stockholders in the newspaper industry. The Times has chosen (for now) to screw its shareholders. Murdoch will screw current readers. Both are being rational, just applying different objectives.

- nh14

May 9, 2008 at 5:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What could be more fun than listening to liberals wail over Rupert Murdoch's ownership of the WSJ. This right-wing ignoramus has yet to see any big changes in the editorial or news content of the paper; just a welcome tad more political coverage. Why don't the liberals fret over what Sulzberger is doing to the Times? He has moved the political complexion of the paper so far left, nobody would notice if George Soros made the family an offer they couldn't refuse. The rest of the paper is the ultimate anti-tabloid. If you ain't rich and beautiful they don't cover you and would just as leave not have you as a reader. Even the sports section has a heavy PC component.

- Lou Sernoff

May 9, 2008 at 6:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am reading the WSJ a lot more lately and it is working for me. Editorial Page is really sharp and on point, 'Clinton Divorce' today was well done. Financials are still best in business. It will be interesting to see if Thomas Bray has any pull on the committee protecting the paper. He ran a great editorial page at the Detroit News and is pretty clear in his thoughts and writing. WSJ is different from most papers in the amount of work they put into every story. Yes, if they shorten the stories and punch up the content, they will be like everything else on the internet. So I think this criticism is valid. Look at the NYT, they seem to be in retreat with more fluff and less objective news stories. NYT should be doubling down and getting more and better hard news, but that has to come from the top. I think we'll see Murdoch keep WSJ on track for the next few years. Then he'll spin the financial side off as a CNBC or Fidelity Website and really make some money.

- CRS9TNR

May 9, 2008 at 8:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is Murdoch's paper. You liberal bastards just can't HANDLE COMPETITION. Does a conservative board get to oversee the New Republic?

- joe stolz

May 12, 2008 at 10:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You people amaze me. Not one of these twelve posts has any discussion of the editorial page, which has been the bread and butter of the WSJ for years. They have expanded that page. More opinion. I read the WSJ and NYT daily. I don't read the WSJ for the stories on the Loch Ness Monster. They are entertaining, but not the journals raison d'etre. So wake up you clowns and understand that you are hanging out in your own echochamber, discussing nothing but your hatred for ideas that differ from your own.

- john cragar

May 12, 2008 at 10:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why haven't I read about the option that a majority of WSJ journalists leave to start a new newspaper?

- Joan

May 15, 2008 at 3:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just as Murdoch can do as he pleases, so can I. I canceled my subscription. The WSJ used to be an excellent example of journalism and I read all but the editorial page, which, in my opinion, was totally out of touch with reality. Now I can get what the WSJ offers on the Internet. Vote with your pocketbook and cancel it.

- ebowl

May 16, 2008 at 6:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Where are we to go now? Couldn't someone assemble the WSJ talent with another paper that we could go to? This paper cannot even make it to my house on time- it is like this for all in Connecticut. Look at the newspaper bins in Grand Central, where we are all unsuccessfully scrounging for Today's Journal- but alas, everyone is reading Yesterday's Journal BECAUSE IT CAME TOO LATE! Like 8:00 a.m.- wow, what a dummy circulation desk. Bad content, bad distribution, the WSJ is gone.

- D11

May 23, 2008 at 7:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close