1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

WSJ Newsstand Price Goes To $2 On July 28

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Ben_Hecht, Jul 16, 2008.

  1. Hmm? It's not.
     
  2. STLIrish

    STLIrish Active Member

    Yeah, not really. Pretty much the whole WSJ online package is behind a pay-wall, and it's got an excellent website.

    And, if you think the WSJ = bottled water (i.e. same as comes from the tap, just in a fancy package), you clearly don't read it. It's the best daily business publication in the country by a very wide margin, and one of the three or four best-written papers of any kind.
     
  3. 2muchcoffeeman

    2muchcoffeeman Well-Known Member

    Hmm? It is.

    http://online.wSportsJournalists.com/public/us

    They have enough online for free that I don't feel the need to pay extra.
     
  4. Joe Williams

    Joe Williams Well-Known Member

    If the new cover price gets matched by a commensurate bump in subscription renewal cost, I won't be re-upping when our current deal runs out. It already is pushing it, in terms of annual price. And now it -- the vaunted, f---ing Wall Street Journal -- offers up Q&As with one of the Olsen twins as part of its Murdochized approach.
     
  5. Gold

    Gold Active Member

    I disagree with the part of it being among the three or four best-written papers of any kind.

    Before the Foster Winans "Heard on the Street" controversy in 1983 and during much of the 1970s, the Wall Street Journal was a very poor newspaper for very rich people. For those of you who don't know, Foster Winans wrote the Heard on the Street column. In his book (I can't remember the title) he acknowledged that when he was hired 18 months before doing the column, he had little knowledge of business, much less Wall Street. This is who they put on one of the most important columns in the paper. In the 1970s, Columbia Journalism Review did a story on how there was stuff in Journal articles which were rewritten press releases. Because of the Winans scandal, the WSJ was embarrassed into improving.

    Fast forward to the first decade of the new millenium. The WSJ has some good writers and some people who know their industry. When Laura Landro did media, she "got it". However, in recent years I could recall reading some weak stuff. Tom Herman used to do taxes and I would read the column because that is one of my interests. When I read it, he would write the same things over and over again, quoting the same experts.

    Stefan Fatsis somehow became the official expert on the business of sport. Maybe an expert to people who don't know anything. He once wrote that Time's balance sheet (Ted Turner had been involved in the merger) showed the value of Turner's two Atlanta teams in basketball and hockey showed a value of $110-million. Fatsis wrote that since the Hawks were worth $110-mil, that meant the Atlanta Thrashers of the NHL had zero or negative value. Within the week, the Atlanta Hawks were sold for $250-million. The valuation on an annual report is not always and not usually market value. If you remember intermediate or advanced accounting, you would know that. It was a foolish thing for Fatsis to write; I will acknowledge I liked his book, Word Freak, but in his role as a sports business reviewer, he really doesn't tell you anything a lot of people don't know.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page