Brauchli's Letter to WSJ Staff April 22, 2008 2:16 p.m. Letter From Marcus Brauchli to Staff of The Wall Street Journal â April 22, 2008 To the Staff: A year ago, I was appointed managing editor, and we set off together on a great journey. We faced uncertainty about our ownership, inclement conditions in our industry and consensus that change was necessary. And so we chose a path of transformation. We rethought the central tenets of our approach, with the aim of making a great news organization even better. During this time of transition, we have not strayed from our mission, producing engaging journalism that illuminates and informs our world. Our reporters, whether in Lhasa or Los Angeles, Washington or Wall Street, are courageous, resourceful and infinitely talented. Our editing, graphics and production staff, too, are brilliant, creative and deeply dedicated. I am proud to have been part of this exceptionally talented team. But now that the ownership transition has taken place, I have come to believe the new owners should have a managing editor of their choosing. So, today, I am resigning. I revere this institution and respect all of my colleagues, both old and new. When News Corp bought Dow Jones, together we crafted an editorial agreement designed to protect our independence. The agreement was designed to block commercial or political interference in our journalism and to ensure we adhered to our code of conduct. Since the acquisition last December, the new management scrupulously has avoided imposing any political or business viewpoints on our coverage and rigorously has enforced the code of conduct. I am confident that our journalistic integrity remains intact and that News Corp. is committed to a Journal that is vibrant, vital and preeminent in American journalism. Under the terms of the editorial agreement, our independence is enforced by a Special Committee. I have met with and conveyed my thoughts to the Special Committee. Many thanks for your extraordinary dedication and support in this last year. I have no doubt the journey we embarked on together will continue to bring Journal readers the best in journalism and you and the Journal continued success. Regards, Marcus
Murdoch himself said that he did not want to interfere with the reporting. If he values his integrity he'll appoint someone independent, or better yet appoint someone else to make the appointment.
CNN Money's coverage of it: Powered by SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close Last Updated: April 22, 2008: 2:39 PM EDTInside the Wall Street Journal's editorial shuffle The Journal's editorial independence was a key piece of Rupert Murdoch's deal for Dow Jones. Now concern grows after its managing editor has quit. By Devin Leonard, senior writer NEW YORK (Fortune) -- Rupert Murdoch made a few concessions when he was trying to persuade the reluctant Bancroft family to part with Dow Jones & Co., owner of the Wall Street Journal. He agreed to appoint a special committee with the right to approve the hiring and firing of key personnel - such as the Journal's managing editor. But the News Corporation (NWS, Fortune 500) chairman wouldn't let the Bancroft clan control it. "I can't put down $5 billion of my shareholders money and not be able to run the business," Murdoch said. Now we're getting a better idea of what Murdoch meant. Today, Wall Street Journal managing editor Marcus Brauchli has resigned from his post, after less than a year on the job. The 46-year-old Brauchli is a Journal veteran with impeccable credentials. But he was promoted by the old regime. Surely, his new boss would prefer a managing editor of his own choosing - never mind any assurances he may have made to the former controlling shareholders of Dow Jones. Is this a big deal? Indeed, it is. The news of Brauchli's pending resignation overshadowed another important development this week at Murdoch's company: it is close to a $580 million deal to buy Newsday from the Tribune Co. News Corporation plans to combine the operations of Newsday and its New York Post. It hopes this will staunch the Post's estimated $50 million in losses. Even so, News Corporation's purchase of Dow Jones for $5.1 billion four months ago and the ensuing newsroom turmoil is the larger story. Before the deal closed, many people worried aloud that the Australian-born press lord would drag the venerable Journal down to the level of the Post. This was unfair, of course. But it spooked the Bancrofts and led the establishment of the special committee. This would seem to tie Murdoch's hands in selecting a new managing editor. Then again, perhaps it won't. Early on, News Corporation named Robert Thomson, formerly the editor of the company's Times of London, as the Journal's publisher. Within the Journal, this was seen as an end run around the committee. Now that Brauchli is on his way out, Thomson holds the title of "interim managing editor." But then why would anybody expect otherwise? According to the Journal's own reporting on the newsroom shuffle, Thomson "already was involved in editorial matters for Dow Jones properties." The formal search for a new managing editor will soon begin. The special committee - whose members include Associated Press CEO Louis Boccardi and Nicholas Negroponte, cofounder of the Media Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology - will undoubtedly weigh in. But you have to wonder if Brauchli's successor isn't already in place. Well, we've always known Murdoch likes to get his way. Presumably, Newsday's editorial employees are watching all the excitement with unusual interest. After all, their paper is next. First Published: April 22, 2008: 1:54 PM EDT DiggFacebook 25 most powerful people in business Crazy bosses quiz Find this article at: http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/22/news/newsmakers/wsj_managing_editor_shuffle.fortune SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article. © 2007 Cable News Network LP, LLP.
Maybe we're making a bigger deal out of this than it really is. Murdoch must know that we will not subscribe to a low-life trash newspaper.
You write as if you have a say in the matter or as if you own that bullshit. You are just a cow like others to be milked, and fed the news they want you to eat and the thoughts (if any) they want you to have, and you pay for the "privilege". Why don't you wake up your ass? Let me tell something? Who is this world pay for something you can get for free? You pay for information you can get for free. Did you know that? You can also get better information for free. What would prevent a newspaper owner to use it to pump and dump? That can be a cash machine for an old man. For for the editors, they are just edits. No business balls in them, otherwise they can start a new newspaper.
Which planet you come from? I would say he will split WSJ in two or more newspapers to make more cash. WSJ for traders WSJ for moms WSJ for rich dads WSJ for bagholders WSJ for ex-major league players who want to lose money trading WSJ -- the classic etc etc ... Then he would sell each WSJ separately by issuing stock. In other words: sell 1 Dollar for 10 dollars! Because people cannot see that 9 among the 10 dollars are in reality just a photocopy of the original dollar.
I was joking. Either way, I will continue reading WSJ news for free regardless. There is no way am I paying for their news. The Post is good for a laugh, WSJ is still good for business news, etc. The age of paying for a single newspaper is fast coming to an end because there is so many competing sources and news aggregators out there. In the past, I have maintained subscriptions to WSJ, Financial Times and New York Times. Now I have none. The only subscription I maintain in print is The Economist. Save a forest and read your newspaper online (for free).
Nope, you ainât alone I download data from both WSJâs Market Data Center and Barronâs Market Lab regularly, and so do many others, for both FA and TA. The following Joke (so no hate mail please ) is a little dated, but anyways ⦠Who Reads the Newspapers 1. The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country. 2. The Washington Post is read by people who think they run the country. 3. The New York Times is read by people who think they should run the country. 4. USA Today is read by people who think they should run the country but don't really understand the Washington Post. They do, however, like their statistics shown in pie charts. 5. The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn't mind running the country, if they could spare the time, and if they didn't have to leave LA to do it. 6. The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country and they did a far superior job of it, thank you very much. 7. The New York Daily News is read by people who aren't too sure who's running the country, and don't really care as long as they can get a seat on the train. 8. The New York Post is read by people who don't care who's running the country, as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated. 9. The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren't sure there is a country or that anyone is running it; but whoever it is, they oppose all that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are handicapped minority feminist atheist dwarfs, who also happen to be illegal aliens from any country or galaxy as long as they are Democrats. 10. The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country but need the baseball scores.