Archive for April 25th, 2008

Is Murdoch’s Mainstream WSJ a Risky Proposition?

By Kyle Austin

By Kyle Austin

This week’s headlines once again reiterated that Rupert Murdoch is in the midst of writing a remarkable closing chapter in his memoir on creating a tyrannical media empire.

On Tuesday, Wall Street Journal managing editor Marcus Brauchli confirmed rumors that he was being marked for exile to Siberia (i.e. a News Corp consulting role) when he issued his letter of resignation.

By Wednesday, Murdoch had the media solely focused on his new bid and handshake agreement with Tribune Co. mogul Sam Zell to purchase Newsday – aligning a distinguishing “Murdoch Newspaper Monopoly” on New York City and its surrounding area.

Is any of this unexpected? Quite frankly, no, as Fortune’s Richard Siklos points out:

“The news from News this week is hardly unexpected, because you never know what to expect from Murdoch. Where the Journal is concerned, the game plan (for now) is to make the paper livelier and expand its political and general news coverage to compete more squarely with the New York Times, which Murdoch feels has held too much sway over setting America’s news agenda.”

This strategy of making the paper livelier (”How long till we have page six girls?” - as a colleague of mine muttered this week?) and more mainstream is a strategy that is very familiar to the changes that Murdoch drove at the New York Post and Times of London.

However, as Siklos also notes – He is taking over a frontrunner in the Wall Street Journal - a very new territory for him:

“But the Journal already outsells the New York Times on weekdays (nearly 2 to 1), so Murdoch is attempting both to keep the Journal’s core business readers and lure the Times’ high-end readership who might otherwise not give a pure business paper a look. If a jazzed-up Journal can get just 5 or 10% of Times readers to switch over, the idea is that more high-end advertisers will follow. There is, of course, a huge online component to this too, not to mention the longer-term promise of melding Journal content with other TV and print assets around the world.”

The true value of the Journal, as it currently stands, is in its deep knowledge in the corporate and business world.  In addition, the resulting clout it holds with the business, investor and analyst community. During the transition to Murdoch’s jazzed-up Journal it will be imperative that he doesn’t dilute this clout.

To everyday readers like my self the change is already noticeable and in my mind that isn’t a good thing. It would behoove Murdoch and News Corp. to make the changes more subtle and keep business top-of-line on page 1 and work to gradually implement the growing political and mainstream news into the rest of the paper. However, Murdoch seems nearly obsessed with becoming the “paper of record” over the Times, neglecting one of the core rules of being a publisher – never alienate your core readers.

Where’s the focus on coming to a concise strategy with online operations and free/paid online content? Let alone, re-shaping the interface of the online site that sorely lacks behind the interactive features and blog following that the Times’ website has created. Where is the focus on working on the loophole in the exclusive WSJ agreement with CNBC, so that he can “allow” the Journal’s writers to save his teetering Fox Business Network?

We haven’t seen them and yet he remains focused on making changes to the print edition of the Journal.  Michael Learmonth over at Silicon Alley Insider fully illustrates just how much the Journal has already transformed since Rupert’s take over in pointing to a very interesting report from the Project on Excellence in Journalism:

“Business coverage is down 50% on the front page (of the WSJ), while political and foreign news are way up. Since Dec. 13, the Journal has devoted almost as much front-page real estate to politics (18%) as the New York Times (26.5%). A complete study of the transformation is available at journalism.org, but here’s a handy pre- and post-Murdoch synopsis (chart).”

barchart2_0.jpg

There are no doubts that change is underway and expect more of the same to follow. However, Rupert will have to walk a tight line if he wants his mainstream approach to pay dividends with the WSJ. A watered down Journal isn’t exactly what its daily readers are asking for and if Murdoch fails to bring in the readers that are currently favoring the “Old Gray Lady,” he and the Journal will be the ones left truly looking gray. Gambling a religious business readership -with deep pockets - is a lot to risk when you’re the market leader.

1 comment April 25th, 2008

Israeli Solder Jailed For Facebook Picture

By Ben Haber

By Ben

Earlier this month Israel put restrictions on what soldiers were allowed to post online. At the time, the Associated Press reported that soldiers inadvertently revealed sensitive information on Facebook, and that they are not allowed to disclose certain classified information.

Over the past few weeks the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has been working tirelessly to remove hundreds of pictures, messages, and other materials from Facebook in order to enhance Israel’s security and privacy. It has been reported that some Israeli solders posted pictures of advanced weapons training, interiors and exteriors of bases - including the equipment inside them - and troop exercises and locations.

The Jerusalem Post reported this week that an Israeli solder was sentenced to 19 days in prison for uploading a certain picture on their Facebook profile:

The IDF would not comment on the exact nature of the photograph, but said the punishment was in proportion to the committed offense.

Sources said the soldier in question would be punished for taking pictures on a military base without permission. The incident marks the first time that a soldier has been tried and sentenced for this kind of offense.

The BBC added that the soldier was serving with an elite intelligence unit of the IDF.

This incident provides a stern warning for other soldiers who are thinking about posting photos – not just in Israel, but around the world. As internet features like Facebook and Google Earth evolve privacy is becoming more and more important – not just for the military, but everyone.

In fact, earlier this month a couple in Western Pennsylvania sued Google because they said images of their home (see below) available through ‘Google Street View’ violated their privacy and devalued their property.

Are you worried about your online privacy?

2 comments April 25th, 2008


Feeds

Follow us on Twitter

Add to Technorati Favorites

Calendar

April 2008
M T W T F S S
« Mar   May »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  

Authors

Q&A

Most Recent Posts

Categories

Links