He should wade away the many liberals at the WSJ (starting with John Harwood) and take direct aim at the New York Times.
“Urgency” is a big corporate buzzword right now. It reminds me of “alignment,” “synergy” and the like.
Gee, this might require the Journal taking a less narrow view of issues which effect all Americans, not only the view of the Corporate Elite.
After all, the average working American market is much larger.
Leave the WSJ the way it is, Murdoch. The last thing we need is the WSJ turned into the sensationalistic drek that Fox News has become.
It’s just a shame that Mr. Murdoch didn’t seek to acquire the NYT and turn it around instead.
I know the existing NYT shareholder structure makes it a bit more of a challenge but isn’t that what this is all about?
It’s surely not about a rapid ROI.
The biggest disadvantage of the WSJ is carrying essential news that isn’t popular. Many of their readers don’t understand the bulk of the WSJ—not the fault of the WSJ, but that their readers never learned how. Even if that information is important to them.
And here is where their website may come in handy. They could post what amounts to online courses in investing, finance, and all sorts of other instruction so that their readers can get a lot more out of the paper.
They might even enlarge on it to have a library that would teach everything from high school and college economics, to investment and portfolio strategies, how to trade in stocks and bonds, mortgages and government fiscal policies, taxes, retirement accounts, how the markets function.
Hundreds of free, hour long streaming or downloadable videos would not only be a huge draw to their website, but would create a strong readership base. The expense of setting up such a system would be quite small compared to the benefits.
Highly entertaining, multimedia presentations from “The Business College of the Wall Street Journal” could even be used in real high school and college classrooms across the US to teach all of those complex subjects to the next generation of investors.
On top of everything else, beyond a certain point for advanced studies from top experts, the WSJ could charge a fee to stream or download the instruction. Say a top economist or other such expert could step into the WSJ studio, and with the help of their multimedia people could present a clear and precise presentation to premium users.
The bottom line would be a lot of readers not only reading the WSJ from cover to cover, but expanding their participation in investment and markets far beyond where they ever dreamed they would.
Judging by who wrote the piece you posted (the "Editor and Publisher" staff), "wrecking" means "turning further to the right." In that sense they would be correct, because, contrary to much MSM stuff going back to the Clinton era, Murdoch is not a conservative. He supported Her Royal Thighness' Senate campaign last year and has contributed to Dem presidential candidates in this cycle. He has gotten himself involved with something called the "Clinton Global Initiative" and has put his NY Post on a program to combat global warming.
What seems even more ominous down the road is the left political slant of Murdoch's son, a likely heir.
Ping!
“deeply conservative editorial page,”
that is b.s.
the editorial pages are pro and con, liberal and conservative, and committed to a free market.
the news content is liberal, as studies have shown.
The man is merely a richer and smarter version of Generoso Pope IMHO.