Categories: OLD Media Moves

WSJ becomes the National Enquirer of business journalism

Adam Hanft of The Huffington Post writes Monday that The Wall Street Journal‘s story last week about Bear Stearns CEO James Cayne shows that the paper will become more rumor-driven like other tabloids owned by News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch.

Hanft wrote, “What’s telling is that all the positive quotes — and there are a bunch of them, to be fair — are disclosed. And all the negative ones are unattributed. When you can’t get one person to speak on the record about the bad stuff, any responsible journalist should reconsider the story.

“Consider these weasels and caveats sprinkled toxically through the piece:

â€¢ ‘Attendees say..’

â€¢ ‘…according to someone who was there…’

â€¢ ‘…associates say…’

â€¢ ‘Friends say…’

â€¢ ‘On July 12th, chatting with visitors over lunch…’

â€¢ ‘On another occasion, he told a visitor…’

â€¢ ‘…participants say.’

â€¢ ‘…according to people familiar with the calls…’

â€¢ ‘Mr. Cayne had left, say two people who were there with him…’

“Beyond these unsubstantiated allegations is the invidious comparison between Mr. Cayne’s purportedly disengaged management style, and that of other CEOs of sub-prime plagued companies.”

View Comments

King Kull says:
November 6, 2007 at 10:47 am
Using this argument, we should discount all the leaked statements by government workers when they spilled classified documents to the NYT.
Why is it surprising company employees would not identify themselves? Unlike the government, in corporate America these employees would be fired in less than a day.
Given corporate malfeasance of late I thought the real story was that the leading business journal was actively questioning executive oversight of a huge industry wide problem that reeks of moral ineptitude. This kind of ethics has gone on long enough in too many boardrooms. Not being involved in such a crisis is not effective delegation; its dereliction of duty.
How is the WSJ not doing the right thing again?
John R says:
November 7, 2007 at 12:13 am
I agree completely with King Kull. There are differences between rumors and anonymous sources.
And more importantly, I don't think News Corp. would change the nature of the paper over-night and take the risk of annoying its current reader-base who seem to be of serious nature.