Ritholtz: WSJ is no longer a must-read for investors
January 22, 2010
Investor and blogger Barry Ritholtz argues that the changes at The Wall Street Journal in terms of coverage and story placement make it less relevant to the people who were previously its core audience — investors.
Ritholtz writes, “My bottom line for content is performance — if I can rely on something to provide me insight and information, it becomes a steady part of the media diet. Once I suspect they are no longer capable of that simple investor service, they go on a short leash. Eventually, they reveal themselves as money makers or money losers, and today, the WSJ crossed that line. They are now money losers to those who read them.
“Quite a difference a few years make.
“A specific article that led to this sad conclusion? The most egregious example (of many) I noticed was this front page headline: New Bank Rules Sink Stocks. This is the sort of silly headline I expect from lesser media outlets, not the Journal. Without getting too philosophical, we know that day-to-day action is mostly nonsense. Selecting a causal factor from the cacophony of news releases, earnings, price data is all but impossible. There is a whole lot of noise, and very little signal. Assigning a definitive causative factor is at best a guessing game, at worst an exercise in futility.”
OLD Media Moves
Ritholtz: WSJ is no longer a must-read for investors
January 22, 2010
Investor and blogger Barry Ritholtz argues that the changes at The Wall Street Journal in terms of coverage and story placement make it less relevant to the people who were previously its core audience — investors.
Ritholtz writes, “My bottom line for content is performance — if I can rely on something to provide me insight and information, it becomes a steady part of the media diet. Once I suspect they are no longer capable of that simple investor service, they go on a short leash. Eventually, they reveal themselves as money makers or money losers, and today, the WSJ crossed that line. They are now money losers to those who read them.
“Quite a difference a few years make.
“A specific article that led to this sad conclusion? The most egregious example (of many) I noticed was this front page headline: New Bank Rules Sink Stocks. This is the sort of silly headline I expect from lesser media outlets, not the Journal. Without getting too philosophical, we know that day-to-day action is mostly nonsense. Selecting a causal factor from the cacophony of news releases, earnings, price data is all but impossible. There is a whole lot of noise, and very little signal. Assigning a definitive causative factor is at best a guessing game, at worst an exercise in futility.”
Read more here.
Media News
Economist’s Bennet, WSJ’s Morrow receive awards
November 14, 2024
Media News
WSJ is testing AI-generated article summaries
November 14, 2024
Media News
Cohen joining Bloomberg Tax
November 14, 2024
Media News
Avila named interim editor for Automotive Dive
November 14, 2024
Full-Time
Reuters seeks a fact-checking editor
November 14, 2024
Subscribe to TBN
Receive updates about new stories in the industry daily or weekly.