The decline of long-form journalism at the WSJ

Alexis Madrigal of The Atlantic writes Wednesday about the decreasing frequency of longer stories at The Wall Street Journal.

Madrigal writes, “All that said, the editors in 2002 were not idiots. If they thought there were 200 stories worth running at that length, it stands to reason that many of the 2011 stories were not better shorter. At least some longer, deeper, and more complex stories are either being shortened or left out entirely.

“Some people might say: the Internet did this! But we’re looking at numbers for the print publication alone here. (I’d actually love to see the numbers including WSJ.com.)

“And what’s most surprising to me as a journalist who was working through the period of the Journal’s greatest decline is that longform has always worked for the publications for which I’ve written. At both Wired and The Atlantic, our most successful stories in terms of impact or audience size have almost always been the deep, definitive ones that get shared all over the Internet.

“Starkman suggests that Rupert Murdoch simply wanted to reduce the number of long stories.

“I wonder how the Journal’s hard paywall might change their incentives for producing longer work. Does the upside of these kinds of stories get dampened because their stories can’t be shared as widely and easily? Perhaps it’s more important to satisfy the core business news audience who pay for the (digital and print) publication with shorter news and analysis.”

Read more here.