Oh, Shut up, David, [1]and quit trying to make us believe that you have a fricking clue. You don’t do it very well.
The “glory days” of the Wall Street Journal you speak so fondly of, is precisely why it got bought up. It’s version of journalism in the 90’s didn’t have nearly as much on the ball as its editorialists did. That became startlingly clear enough following September 11th. The readership caught on, and then so did the advertisers.
The readers and advertisers who left the paper, were in the end the same ones that have been leaving newspapers all across the country, and for the same reason; the drop-off of both readers and advertisers was and remains in direct relationship to the amount the paper leaned left. In the end, the editorial section, which was the only bright spot in the paper, was not enough to keep it afloat.
Perhaps with a little balance being added to the newsroom, by the new ownership, the paper can find its way again. I certainly hope so. But that you fail to identify the papers biggest problem as such, tells me that you yourself are being blinded by your own idealism. Time was, that kind of blindness put one in a rather precarious position in the news business. As it is, you’re one of many. Which is why the mainstream media has been failing so dramatically of late.
Or, is it that moving the paper away from the left, is your biggest fear? It would certainly explain your reaction to Murdoch be the owner. Don’t worry, there are plenty of people all over it The Daily Kos and the Democratic Underground who think (?) as do you.
Time will tell if Murdoch can turn that situation around at the Wall Street Journal. If he does manage it, it will not be because he’s been listening to people like yourself.