Like many others, I'm cool to the idea of Rupert Murdoch buying the Journal. But there is an upside to it. While many professional media observers have the secret decoder manual that tells them to ignore the paper's Neanderthaloid editorial page and only pay attention to the top-notch reportage, most of the Journal's millions of subscribers don't know to make such a distinction, and so the newspaper's terrific reputation also bolsters an unbelievably pernicious and problematic op-ed page, which in turn exerts great influence on the country's monied set (and that set matters). If Murdoch took over the paper and ran its reputation into the ground, we'd lose a lot of good reporting, but the editorial page would also lose influence, becoming something more akin to The Washington Times. I can't decide if, on the whole, sacrificing the news to kill the opinions would be a net benefit or a net loss, but I'm thinking about it.
Friday, July 13, 2007
interesting point...
from Ezra Klien
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Ezra's point is a trap. It's never a good idea to kill opinions.
I don't think he's really arguing to kill opinions. He's arguing that killing the legitimacy of the newspaper might harm the solid newsreporting that wsj does but that by making the newsreporting more consistent with the op-ed page quality you are not creating any illusions about the op-ed page as he stated "so the newspaper's terrific reputation also bolsters an unbelievably pernicious and problematic op-ed page." He doesn't really think Murdock buying the WSJ will make the paper go bankrupt and go away. The WSJ will still have pernicious opinions in its op-ed page whether the paper is revered or ostricized. I think your point may be you are against the priniciple of killing opinions and you don't want to see the goal of hurting the op-ed page come at the expense of the quality newsreporting that the WSJ does. I think there will always be quality reporters who will do quality work. I'd think making the WSJ akin to the Washington Times in not going to bring down the quality of newsreporting as a whole and would cause the average reader who isn't able to contextualize the difference between op-ed page and newsreporting to think twice when reading what the wsj tries to pass off as justifiable opinion.
Post a Comment