No, Murdoch has not ruined the Journal, as many had feared he would. In fact, in the estimation of not a few, he has already made it a better newspaper. The A-hed, which had acquired an aching mediocrity in the last years of Paul Steiger’s reign as managing editor, is actually readable again--and often pegged to the news (which is no bad thing in a newspaper). Page One of the Journal used to be, arguably, the most smug front page of any newspaper in the world, in that it exercised a pompous right to ignore the news, and to inflict on its readers a species of “long-form journalism” rooted in the belief that size was everything.Todo el perfil, aquí.
"Let us give Murdoch his due: The Journal’s news stories are now shorter, sharper, newsier and more relevant. The paper is expanding. He is the only press mogul who does not have to butcher his payroll and put reporters on the dole."
"All that said, this writer believes we are wimps to be scared by Murdoch; compared with Northcliffe and Beaverbrook and Hearst, he's a pussycat. Murdoch phobia shows what a soft, homogenized, emasculated world we live in. Murdoch phobia is also the result of the press obsessing about (and inflating) its own importance. There are many other people, such as Robert Rubin and Jeffrey Sachs, who are more dangerous than the man who bought The Wall Street Journal--and who, in doing so, saved The Wall Street Journal from itself."
Apuntes, comentarios, noticias y ocurrencias relacionadas con el periodismo económico, escrito desde el Seminario ICJCE de Periodismo Económico de la Facultad de Comunicación de la Universidad de Navarra.
08 diciembre 2008
Rupert Murdoch ha hecho de The Wall Street Journal un mejor periódico. No lo digo yo, sino Tunku Varadarajan, antiguo editor de Opinión del diario y actual colaborador de Forbes:
Por Alfonso Vara Miguel a las 11:59 p. m.
Categorías directivos, WSJ
Suscribirse a: Enviar comentarios (Atom)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario