Slashdot Mirror
Wall Street Journal To Cut Back Print Outside the US (ft.com)
The Wall Street Journal plans to discontinue production of print edition outside the United States in what is the latest testament that popularity of print is waning and it is no longer as lucrative for news outlets to maintain print editions of their journalism. From a Financial Times report: The print edition of the business and finance newspaper, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, will no longer be available in Europe (paywalled; alternative source), according to two people briefed on the plans. Free copies and unprofitable hotel "amenity deals," where hotels buy bulk copies at a discount, are also being scrapped. However, Dow Jones, the News Corp division that owns the Journal, is debating whether to continue mailing copies to subscribers who still want a physical paper. It is pursuing a similar approach in Asia but is in talks with a partner about a print joint venture that would continue distribution in one big market there, according to the people with knowledge of the discussions. In Australia some Wall Street Journal pages are available as an insert in The Australian, another Murdoch-owned paper.
And he is half-Mexican! And he hates irony!”
Keep showing that liberal edge by not reporting on some VERY breaking news this week in CNN's complete internal collapse. The Trump-Russia collusion angle was a conspiracy theory and nobody, conveniently, is talking about it.
They;re one of the few paywalled publications that actually do quite well online. Also, consider that the WSJ is one thick mofo of a paper, so that's gotta be costly to ship (printing it likely isn't a massive cost per copy for them due to the scale, but shipping has got to be a beast of a cost).
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
They don't wank fake US news anymore.
Hilary LOST1! GET OVER IT!
The Wall Street Journal predicted that Hillary Clinton would win 97% to Trump's 1%.
To the extent that the news business' ownership became corporate, it became a business solely steered to no-longer report "the news" but to offer innuendo and so-called commentary.
This approach killed serious news reporting. You have papers that report world events from their respective government angle, even when they may not be entirely government controlled.
It's sad folks.
Do you folks remember the so called weapons of mass destruction? Had news outlets been offering real news, questions would have been asked, and the truth realized.
How about what's happening in the mid-east? How about here at home? People are having to deal with tainted water and prospects of unemployment, but outlets focus on non stories like the "Russian connection" to our president.
Even when reporters are caught (on hidden camera), "telling the real truth", none of these outlets dedicate time to such events.
People like me and many others see these things and unsubscribe. I am happy that they are reducing circulation. Maybe they will see what I see and re-start reporting actual news.
On behalf of Europe: Thank you.
Now end circulation in the US and maybe the online media can recover from your dinosaur-like struggle to stay relevant.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Although not understood well in the U.S., the U.S. news model (prior to Mr. Murdoch coming here) involved trying report the news as objectively and free of a political angle as possible (most U.S. newspapers still do this) - but the editorial section could be as politically slanted as the editors / owners desired. The Wall Street Journal used this model before.
However Mr. Murdoch has a different model and has the political slant as part of the news reporting itself (essentially making the news political propaganda since its not told objectively...MSNBC sort of fills the other side of that although either is like reading a light version of Pravda from back in the day with a political view controling what "news" you see and how its presented). Although pledging to keep the Journal's objectivity in news coverage and keeping the then editor on for 3 years - he left after 4 months.
The Journal still does some good reporting but is a shell of its former self from a impartial news outlet point of view: http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
When I was working in construction in the late 1980's, I had a subscription to the WSJ. One day I saw an article about General Dynamics being a beaten down stock at $20 per share. I did some more research and bought ten shares. I made $40 in dividends over four years, and sold at $80 per share. Commissions back then were murder at $60 per trade.
I blame you younguns with your damn computer doohickeys and your zap zap devices. In my day we didn't have any of this garbage, this computer nonsense. We didn't even have paper, we had papyrus. Know what that is? And we liked it.
The tabloid format of the European WSJ made it ideal to read on an airplane. I'm going to miss that next time I fly home from Europe. I guess it's the cumbersome Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung now.
Clearly you have not actually read the WSJ. No surprise their because it was the first major newsaper to successfully paywall.
Here's the deal with the WSJ. As far as news, and especially analysis of news and invesitgative reporting of bussiness, there's probably no better paper. In terms of news alone it's the equal of the NY times.
HOWEVER all that assumes you DO NOT READ THE EDITORIAL SECTION. that section is completely batshit crazy. The only thing xrazier than their editorial and opinion section are the rabid comments section. I've never encountered more virulent trolls anywhere. And that's trolls of both stripes, liberal and conservative. it's just sicko.
But getting back to the news, their news section often completely contradicts their editorial section and they are not the least bit afraid to do it authoritatively. They not only have good reporting but even better policy analsyis so they speak with authority in the news section. They make a real effort to teach and explain what things mean.
I found I had to give up the online version. I only read it in print. the online section is where the comments are. And they have lots of links in the online section that will suck you into the editorial and opion section. You find your anger index reaching boiling level when you try to read it online.
But with the print version you just take out the opinion section and put it in the fish wrap drawer. Then this Fufu fish is delicious.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
HOWEVER all that assumes you DO NOT READ THE EDITORIAL SECTION. that section is completely batshit crazy.
That statement is applicable to any Fox News related media outlet of which WSJ is one since both are owned by News Corp which doesn't give a shit about reporting facts but does care a lot about making money.