Andrew, I share your frustration, but you have to keep in mind that The Wall Street Journal editorial and op-ed pages are not now and never have been "news." (I remember someone calling them the closest thing to the funny pages you'll find in the Journal). For that matter, no newspaper's op-eds qualify as news unless the writer is for the first time saying something very different from what they've said before. For example, an op-ed by George W. Bush saying that taxes should be raised would indeed be news.
Anyone who has tried to place an op-ed with the WSJ recently knows that if you're saying something different from the paper's editorial position, you have a very very small chance of actually getting it published. The op-eds are seen as an extension of the editorial board's positions or as validation for what the paper either has already said, or agrees with but prefers that someone else say.
You raise the right point in your post: the op-ed ignores the fact that taxes could be higher than 19.3 percent if we wanted them to be. But that's not the point the WSJ wanted to make.
Why would the WSJ, or any newspaper, include an op-ed like this that might not get a passing grade if it were submitted as a paper in an economics course?
Because it gets people to subscribe and advertise.
"... if you're saying
"... if you're saying something different from the paper's editorial position, you have a very very small chance of actually getting it published."
Yes, but at how many newspapers is this not true?
A while back Boris Johnson, London's new mayor, wrote an amusing article about his experience getting a op-ed through the process at the New York Times.
Then the WSJ is not a "newspaper"
Andrew, Your comment
Andrew,
Your comment regarding the WSJ brand brings to mind a situation some of my (marketing strategy consulting) clients have been in, and how they deal with it.
Most of my clients are "manufacturers"*, who (among other targeted end user segments and channels) serve consumer markets through retail channels (e.g., Wal-mart). For the sake of efficiency, retailers sometimes demand from a manufacturer a full line within the product category in question -- what they call "good, better, best", with at least three different levels of quality (however defined) and price points. In some cases, the "good" really means crap at a low price point: poor performance or reliability or durability, etc. -- the kind of thing that can lead to consumer disappointment/anger and damage a brand. So in some cases my clients offer the low end product under a different brand name.
So here's a suggestion for the WSJ to reconcile the objectives of maintaining brand equity and spewing Paul Gigot's propoganda**: Cut the Opinion section out of the WSJ (or replace it with a respectable one) and publish it separately, or within another newspaper, under a different brand name, and advertise it on Rush Limbaugh's radio program. A possible slogan for that new publication: "All the News You Want to Hear"
* I say "manufacturers" but in many cases they outsource manufacturing.
** OK, all of the above is facetious. And it's not at all clear to me that the WSJ's silly, propogandizing opinion page conflicts with their marketing objectives. It's possible that they are providing a product feature that their target audience wants. Loss of respect among those who know it's all bullsh*t may be a secondary concern to them.
Very helpful, thanks!!
Very helpful, thanks!!
Post new comment