Nicole's Editorials

The Amputated Wall Street Journal

I decided to let Slate.com's Jack Shafer help me make sense of of the Wall Street Journal's redesigned paper. As of January 2, the newspaper will lose three inches in width. I suppose I'm just too trusting and believed that the decision to "go small" was for my own convenience, as the publisher claimed. I guess I was blinded by the idea that it would be new and improved. Mr. Shafer brought to my attention, though, that the three inch width loss will save quite a bit of money. Afterall, a mere 10 percent of the paper will be axed.

I suppose I should have seen through the "I fly First Class, but when I'm reading the Journal now I knock over my neighbor's orange juice. That won't happen anymore," story. Pretty lame. I know I've had that problem. I do, in fact, read the Wall Street Journal in the afternoons at work. I can't say I've ever had a problem with the size.

Personally, I think the three inch loss is pretty aggravating. That just means less space for the stories that should be reported.

"The rejigged Journal will also brim with summaries of all sorts. The paper plans to digest news from other news sources in one column, summarize 'the key news by industry and news topic' in another, and even condense the paper's long features to 'draw out the key meaning.'"

Sounds great, doesn't it?

I really liked how Slate allowwed readers to make up new slogans for the Wall Street Journal. Mike O'Connell's seemed to fit particularly well.

all Street
urnal:
ecause
ig things
ome in s
ackages.

Maybe this alteration will be a change for the better, but the only benefits I can see at this time will be in the Wall Street Journal's pocketbook.

posted by clevergirl @ 9:25 PM