Me and the Wall Street Journal finally broke up

I have had a long-standing relationship with the Wall Street Journal. We’ve been through my business career together, traveled the country hand-in-hand and kept each other company in many lonely airport lounges when flights were delayed or during long layovers. I could always find a story I had not explored fully in her ample pages.

She was the third newspaper I ever read. The Saint Paul Pioneer Press was the first, the Dispatch was the second. They got merged in the mid ’80s and it got a bit awkward, as these things usually do. So, I picked up the Wall Street Journal just in case… well, you know.

And the Journal did some good reporting from a capitalist point of view. They didn’t wade too far afield into politics, knowing that both Democrats and Republicans were equally capitalistic. Both believed in making money regardless of their politics.

But when Rupert Murdock bought the Journal in 2007, I was skeptical but hopeful that the newspaper could maintain its reporting above the fray of politics and focus on stories as it pertained to business, reporting the political climate but not taking sides or laying blame.

My friends tried to warn me I would get my heart stomped on, but I remained loyal. Good business operates in any environment. Good businesspeople know this as David Rich points out in his blog post today. There are no “bad environments,” just bad business people who can’t see the upside.

Mr. Murdoch told the Bancrofts that ‘any interference — or even hint of interference — would break the trust that exists between the paper and its readers, something I am unwilling to countenance.’ … Mr. Murdoch and the Bancrofts agreed on standards modeled on the longstanding Dow Jones Code of Conduct.

In the ensuing years, I noticed slight changes in editorial word use as more and more “adjectives” entered the stories. As the health care debate ramped up, the Journal broke with AP style and started referring to the Affordable Care Act as “Obamacare.” All sorts of red flags started rising.

But the stories were still compelling enough to continue reading as I categorically ignored the editorial pages and OpEd pieces by Karl Rove and his ilk.

Last Tuesday, the Journal ran a story on the state of college education in India. Several paragraphs into the story, they printed this:

India’s economic expansion was supposed to create opportunities for millions to rise out of poverty, get an education and land good jobs. But as India liberalized its economy starting in 1991 after decades of socialism, it failed to reform its heavily regulated education system. Business executives say schools are hampered by overbearing bureaucracy and a focus on rote learning rather than critical thinking and comprehension.

Subtle, until you recognized the general environment of the country. In Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida and other states the Republican governors were waging a war on education, demonizing teachers as bureaucrats and the public school system as “heavily regulated.” Across the country, the Tea Party stirred up hate against President Obama by calling him a socialist. The Republicans joined the chant and FOX News amplified the drum beats.

Any good copyeditor would have struck those lines out in her sleep. I assume the editors at the Journal are not stupid nor careless, so the editorial comments in the story and the inference that the United States will be in the same state as India given our current “socialist” political climate were intentional, making the Journal reckless, incendiary and irresponsible. According to its point of view, to be a capitalist in the United States is to also be a social conservative, aligned with the ideological positions of the GOP and Tea Party.

That was too much to swallow.

It is one thing to take an editorial position on the Editorial pages, but it is quite another to weave your political views throughout the stories. It was skillfully done, but done nonetheless. I suppose the average reader would not have picked up the reference as readily as someone who has worked at a newspaper and has an APStylebook resting on the corner of his desk. As the discriminating readers leave quietly, one by one, the Journal will be left with those who either agree with their political position or who can’t discern the difference between capitalism and zealous conservatism. In the end I suppose public education will win out, but not because it is socialist, but that the conservatives will have driven out the best and brightest. But that is an argument for another day.

As I was talking with the Journal rep who was begging me to stay with every possible turn, I found myself getting angry with her. She was the one who had changed. She was the one who wanted to remake me. She was the one who failed to accept me for who I am and respect my differences while appreciating what we had in common.

I hung up the phone in a mingled state of loss and anger.

I’m sure I will move on, but it won’t be the same. Long-term relationships change a dog and the next newspaper will suffer the pangs of betrayal, my inability to get close and trust and my issues with intimacy. I will forever be asking “what does she want from me?” as I read each story printed in any newspaper.

The Wall Street Journal kicked this poor puppy right in the ribs. It kicked hard, harder than any newspaper should have kicked a dog. I may not recover from this one.

.

Send to Kindle
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

About Rufus Dogg

I'm a dog who writes a blog. It is not a pet blog. It is a real blog that talks about real ideas. No, really. I do my own writing, but I have a really, really cool editor who overlooks the fact that I can't really hit the space-bar key cause I don't have thumbs. I talk about everything from politics to social issues to just rambling about local problems. And, sometimes I just talk about nothing in particular. Google+
This entry was posted in American Culture, Business, Dayton Ohio, Education, Journalism, Local politics, Political thoughts, Pop Culture, Thinking out loud and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Me and the Wall Street Journal finally broke up

  1. Dan Borschke says:

    It is always demoralizing when a friend turns on you and you are right on target to describe the Wall Street Journal as a former friend. Murdoch has certainly changed journalism for the worst and we all must admit such. Hopefully you will find a new business news source.

  2. Rufus says:

    I’m not sure about a new business source. It appears that to be a capitalist, you also need to subscribe to a radical right-wing ideology. That is rather sad. I guess the ultimate statement is for some of us left-wing bleeding heart liberals to make a pretty dang good living in spite of our political views From my perch, however, it appears that most of the GOP is populated by W2 folks who have no clue on how capitalism really works. They can have the WSJ.

  3. James Dibben says:

    Well, you’re smarter than I am. I don’t think I would have picked up on that.

    I turn off anything that gets involved with name calling on a president. I didn’t like it when Bush was president (voted for him) and I don’t like it now when Obama is president (didn’t vote for him).

    I can’t stand the name calling. If you think some of Obama’s policies or ideas are socialistic, that’s fine. Just don’t call him names, please. There’s plenty in America that’s already socialistic. TARP anyone? Both sides put that thing through.

    I’ve always hated the term “Obamacare”. An article will lose me as soon as I see the word.

  4. Rufus says:

    It actually started out as a reading exercise many, many years ago about Point of View with my kids driving them to soccer tournaments. I made them read a newspaper article and then we’d talk about objectivity, truth and facts. It always started out as “What is the writer’s point of view?” It is AMAZING what you can discover about what is really going on in news reporting and how easily the average bear can get “snookered” into believing a story as “objective fact.” Doesn’t take a whole lot of practice to get good at it. We still “play the game” from time to time, even though the kids have grown and flown…

    I offer as an example:
    Yesterday, a Facebook friend wrote on her wall:
    “bought a car, am getting my hair done, AND on top of all that, had mac and cheese pizza for lunch. This is just the best day ever.”

    It could have just as easily read:
    “incurred long-term debt on a rapidly depreciating asset, contributed to our culture’s ideal, unreal expectations of female beauty and consumed a high-fat, high-carbohydrate food-like product. This is just the worst day ever.”

    and still have been true.