Murdoch On "Ridiculous" Journal Editing -Gawker
He [Rupert Murdoch] also rants about how it’s "ridiculous" that an average of 8.3 editors looks at a typical WSJ story, inevitable expanding it beyond reason. "People don’t have time for it — there’s not a story that you can’t get all the facts in (within) half the space."
Rupert, shut up! You don’t know what you’re talking about. You got to go in there and change something don’t you. It reminds me of a line in National Treasure, "Someone’s got to go to prison Ben." You can’t buy a company and not change it, can you Rupert? The great thing about the WSJ is that it’s writers take the time to get the story right. They don’t just settle a couple crappy quotes and an article biased towards the journalist’s opinions. If the WSJ takes your advice it will just be another crappy paper. We already have too many crappy papers. That’s why people are turning to blogs, because when bloggers are biased at least they generally don’t hide it, disguise it, and try to present it as honest information intended to deceive and manipulate. It’s about getting the truth out and that’s something the Journal has always done better than most of it’s competition. So please don’t fuck up the Journal.
Post a Comment