Posted on 08/06/2007 2:21:31 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
In reference to the liberal New York Times' publisher, the new owner of the Wall Street Journal, Rupert Murdoch, said in a recent interview reported by Editor and Publisher, "I won’t meddle any more than Arthur Sulzberger does…. I just think The Journal needs a little more urgency.”
According to the report, there may be some changes at the venerable newspaper under its pending new leadership.
"We have lots of decisions to make,” Murdoch said. "How much should we really spend developing the Saturday paper? What should we do digitally? Should we remain subscription-based on the Web, or should we make it free? How much should we spend beefing up political and international coverage?
"I want it to be more competitive with The New York Times,” Murdoch added. "But that will be expensive.”
"I would like to see real breaking news,” Murdoch added. "I like A-heds” [the feature that often runs down the middle of the front page], "but I don’t like a whole page of A-heds.”
© NewsMax 2007. All rights reserved.
Hasn’t Pinch about run that rag into the ground?
Be like Pinch? (Shudder.)
Bad example.
You're missing the point. Murdoch's getting a lot of criticism over fears he might "interfere" with the Wall Street Journal and presumably impair the objectivity of its news reporting.
So this is a very clever rejoinder. How can Murdoch's liberal critics complain if he does nothing more than Sulzberger does at the New York Times? After all, that would constitute an implicit criticism of Sulzberger and the NYT, which is blasphemous. So if Murdoch actually keeps this promise, liberals will have a hard time faulting him.
Of course the truth is that Sulzberger interferes all the time with the NYT and has further skewed its bias. So this promise gives Murdoch all the leeway he could ever want to do anything whatsoever he chooses with the Wall Street Journal. Later on, he just answers any complaints by pointing to even worse examples by Sulzberger.
This might be a sneaky way to try to cover for his interference...just as at the NYTimes! LOL
what’s he mean by “urgency”?
horny news?
Meanwhile, along with Sulzberger, Mark Haines of CNBC and John Harwood of the Journal, not exactly models of fair minded journalistic objectivity, must be passing bricks.
.
Hey, there is no real difference between teh New York Times and the Weekly World News.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.