Today's editorial in The Wall Street Journal is well worth the read, if only to learn more about the neo-con mind-set. (Thanks to memeorandum for leading me to it.)
Never have I seen a more self-contradictory, incoherent piece. While seemingly extolling the marketplace, it mocks what the marketplace does to newspapers:
The same lack of independence also applies to most non-family media companies such as Gannett, a newspaper owner whose make-no-waves corporate ethic turns nearly all of its editorials into mush.
The editors of the W.S.J. are proud of their independence. And it's true that while they condemn Democrats, constantly, - they also get pissed at Republicans who do something the Journal deems insufficiently right wing. Their buttons are bursting with the pride they have over their "independent" condemnation of Kissinger, when he promoted detente. They are even handed - they will attack any Democrat who is an advocate for a minimum wage, and will also criticize any Republican who supports it as well.
The editorial board at the Journal believe in a lese-faire kind of capitalism. They aren't fond of direct owner involvement, as in Sulzberger or Murdoch, nor do they like a Gannet style corporate "mush." What they believe in is a monarchy in which the King and family are nominally in charge but not organized enough to actually lead, and so a class of Prime Ministers actually rules, handpicking their own succession.
This paragraph really sums it up the schizophrenia:
At a dinner honoring their century of Journal ownership in 2002, Bob Bartley expressed his gratitude to the Bancrofts for their support, noting that some of his editorials over 30 years must not have sat well with everyone in the ideologically diverse clan. But Bartley added that his proudest boast was that he ran the only editorial page "that sells newspapers." We can't say what any future owner would do, but we doubt one would be foolish enough to undermine this market appeal.
It's great to hear their confession that the editorial page takes its outrageous positions in order to shock and awe, much like the National Enquirer does with its front page. But they offer no evidence that it in fact helps sell the paper. The editorial board takes credit for a "success" not reflected in its stock price; and ignores the real contribution made by the quality of the reporting in the paper itself.
Comments