
I dislike the Wall Street Journal's new format and, this being a blog, I am going to tell you why: the old WSJ usually had three interesting articles on the front page. One was usually a human-interest story, one generally political or world-oriented and one generally business.
In the new, skinny, version of WSJ there isn't room for those articles. And the information that has replaced it comes across as "softer" journalism - more commentaries than facts.
Businesspundit likes the change because "I get the commentary version of some industries and companies that don't normally get covered. That is something the business blogosphere doesn't do."
Mitch at the Window Manager, on the other hand, doesn't like the new version. He feels that this quote from the editors on the WSJ's new format:
A cornerstone of the new Journal will be an increased focus on unique, differentiated content, with 80% of the news content focusing on "what the news means" not just "what happened."
means they are trying to be more blog-like.
I don't think it goes that far. I just liked getting the facts, which included some analysis by industry analysts and leaders, and then drawing my own conclusion.






You might want to take something from this:
http://letterrevenge.blogspot.com/2007/01/journal-lays-egg.html
Posted by: Anonymous | January 14, 2007 8:06 AM | Permalink to Comment