Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (3925)	7/29/2003 4:28:23 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793587

But he said there is practically none, and he doesn't claim to have any. One would have thought you'd agree, John. No, I thought, just to be serious for a moment, his rendition was both much too condescending and too simplistic. The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times are, in important respects, in different businesses. The WSJ is a financial paper with a good investigative journalism staff and one of the oddest, most narrow minded, editorial staffs on the planet. It's not, nor does it aspire to be, a national general newspaper. The problems it faces are simply different from those of the NYTimes. As for the content, I thought he underplayed the ethical mandate to get the story right and overplayed the commentary role. It's a truism of our time that a journalist's politics appears in her/his stories, just as elements in her/his personal biography do. Bartley was offering that one up again. The struggle, which he doesn't appear to appreciate, is to not only get the story right but to frame it for multiple audiences, not simply financial audiences. If one of the great lessons of writing is to keep the audience in mind and you are writing for a major national newspaper like the Times, imagine the challenge of framing the story for those many and layered audiences.