Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Deals | GQ on 'vulgarian' Murdoch's takeover

In a new story with implications for Gannett, GQ magazine -- better known as a men's fashion glossy -- aims its gun barrel at the two-year-old sale of The Wall Street Journal to News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch. "It was a stunning turn of events whose significance is still coming into focus,'' the magazine says, as it recounts a litany of predictions about where the Australian "vulgarian" Murdoch would take the storied newspaper.

One grim prediction coming true: Murdoch is taking steps to turn the Journal into the preeminent national daily, an attack on the market now claimed by GCI's flagship USA Today, and The New York Times. A sign Murdoch is gaining ground: In October, the WSJ supplanted USAT as the nation's No. 1 circulation newspaper, on the strength of its thousands of paid online subscriptions. (USAT publisher Dave Hunke notes that it continues to be the No. 1 paper in print.)

GQ's story continues: "The Murdoch takeover marks the beginning of the end of the newspaper world as we once knew it. In the two years since the Bancrofts sold out, nearly 200 newspapers in the United States have gone under. The Rocky Mountain News, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and Ann Arbor News are dead. The San Francisco Chronicle, Boston Globe, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Philadelphia Inquirer, and entire Tribune chain are barely hanging on. Nearly 47,000 jobs have been lost. But under Murdoch, the Wall Street Journal is not only still publishing, but also, unbelievably, hiring."

Left off that list of dead print newspapers, of course, is Gannett's Tucson Citizen, shuttered in May, and replaced with a barely-there website.

Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the green rail, upper right.

6 comments:

  1. It shouldn't be too hard to turn the Journal into the preeminent national daily. Have you seen USA Today in the last year or two? Pretty thin on content (and pages). Plenty of editing errors and silly oversights -- so many that I have stopped reading it regularly. Quite a decline in visuals too for what I thought was THE visuals newspaper. What has happened to Gannett's flagship? It has become rather pedestrian. Certainly looks vulnerable to me, a casual outside observer.

    ReplyDelete
  2. When did you bring this blog back Jim? You going to keep it? If so, why?

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is such old news. What's the matter, can't come up with anything decent? Gotta' try for a low blow? Who reads the WSJ that really wants to read it?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The GQ story is new, published the day before yesterday. The WSJ is one of the world's most influential papers. And under Murdoch, its threat to USA Today is real: Murdoch himself made the decision to continue charging for online subscriptons, reversing his earlier position. That about-face pushed the WSJ ahead of USAT in the most recent circulation rankings.

    ReplyDelete
  5. rmichem: I've been experimenting with a possible relaunch since early this month. I'll make a final call after the start of the New Year.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So GQ rehashes old news and you do as well? By the way, the economy coupled with slow business travel is what allowed the WSJ ahead of USAT. Get your story straight. The WSJ is after the NYT. It may come after USA TODAY later but not for now. IT needs to do a lot of work to become general interest enough

    ReplyDelete

Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.