Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Wall Street Journal To Cut Back Print Outside the US (ft.com) 32

Posted by msmash from the print-is-dying-part-72891 dept.
The Wall Street Journal plans to discontinue production of print edition outside the United States in what is the latest testament that popularity of print is waning and it is no longer as lucrative for news outlets to maintain print editions of their journalism. From a Financial Times report: The print edition of the business and finance newspaper, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, will no longer be available in Europe (paywalled; alternative source), according to two people briefed on the plans. Free copies and unprofitable hotel "amenity deals," where hotels buy bulk copies at a discount, are also being scrapped. However, Dow Jones, the News Corp division that owns the Journal, is debating whether to continue mailing copies to subscribers who still want a physical paper. It is pursuing a similar approach in Asia but is in talks with a partner about a print joint venture that would continue distribution in one big market there, according to the people with knowledge of the discussions. In Australia some Wall Street Journal pages are available as an insert in The Australian, another Murdoch-owned paper.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wall Street Journal To Cut Back Print Outside the US More

Wall Street Journal To Cut Back Print Outside the US

Comments Filter:

  • It makes sense... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Penguinisto ( 415985 ) on Friday June 30, 2017 @10:09AM (#54719193) Journal

    They;re one of the few paywalled publications that actually do quite well online. Also, consider that the WSJ is one thick mofo of a paper, so that's gotta be costly to ship (printing it likely isn't a massive cost per copy for them due to the scale, but shipping has got to be a beast of a cost).

    • I thought they did regional print on demand to avoid the high shipping costs.

  • Here's why they are reducing circulation... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bogaboga ( 793279 ) on Friday June 30, 2017 @10:21AM (#54719265)

    To the extent that the news business' ownership became corporate, it became a business solely steered to no-longer report "the news" but to offer innuendo and so-called commentary.

    This approach killed serious news reporting. You have papers that report world events from their respective government angle, even when they may not be entirely government controlled.

    It's sad folks.

    Do you folks remember the so called weapons of mass destruction? Had news outlets been offering real news, questions would have been asked, and the truth realized.

    How about what's happening in the mid-east? How about here at home? People are having to deal with tainted water and prospects of unemployment, but outlets focus on non stories like the "Russian connection" to our president.

    Even when reporters are caught (on hidden camera), "telling the real truth", none of these outlets dedicate time to such events.

    People like me and many others see these things and unsubscribe. I am happy that they are reducing circulation. Maybe they will see what I see and re-start reporting actual news.

    • Clearly you have not actually read the WSJ. No surprise their because it was the first major newsaper to successfully paywall.
      Here's the deal with the WSJ. As far as news, and especially analysis of news and invesitgative reporting of bussiness, there's probably no better paper. In terms of news alone it's the equal of the NY times.
      HOWEVER all that assumes you DO NOT READ THE EDITORIAL SECTION. that section is completely batshit crazy. The only thing xrazier than their editorial and opinion section are

      • HOWEVER all that assumes you DO NOT READ THE EDITORIAL SECTION. that section is completely batshit crazy.

        That statement is applicable to any Fox News related media outlet of which WSJ is one since both are owned by News Corp [wikipedia.org] which doesn't give a shit about reporting facts but does care a lot about making money.

      • Agreed -- the WSJ benefits from actually having journalistic integrity in their newsroom, willingness to report issues that don't generate ad clicks, and an audience wiling to pay for well written news. And yes, this applies to only their news reporting, their opinions are totally ridiculous.

  • On behalf of Europe: Thank you.

    Now end circulation in the US and maybe the online media can recover from your dinosaur-like struggle to stay relevant.

    • On behalf of Europe: Thank you.

      It's a damn shame that Europeans thank people for choices taken from them. Unless Europe is extremely far gone and forcing you to buy the WSJ then I don't see why this would make you happy.

        (The partisan in me does get it, though. Although I rarely watch MSNBC, I will be happy if it ever goes off the air.)

      • The WSJ and its massive anti-new-media campaign is the reason behind the recent YouTube ad fallout. The sooner this scourge in the media landscape is gone, the better. Not because I am against diversity, but because I am against underhanded practices aimed at eliminating competition that supplies a superior product they cannot compete with with fair methods.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Mashiki ( 184564 )

      FYI that comment is now illegal in Germany, since they just passed a gay marriage law with a internet censorship rider attached to it. Hope you enjoy your jail cell.

  • News lost its objectivity under Murdoch. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sasparillascott ( 1267058 ) on Friday June 30, 2017 @10:40AM (#54719385)
    Although not understood well in the U.S., the U.S. news model (prior to Mr. Murdoch coming here) involved trying report the news as objectively and free of a political angle as possible (most U.S. newspapers still do this) - but the editorial section could be as politically slanted as the editors / owners desired. The Wall Street Journal used this model before.

    However Mr. Murdoch has a different model and has the political slant as part of the news reporting itself (essentially making the news political propaganda since its not told objectively...MSNBC sort of fills the other side of that although either is like reading a light version of Pravda from back in the day with a political view controling what "news" you see and how its presented). Although pledging to keep the Journal's objectivity in news coverage and keeping the then editor on for 3 years - he left after 4 months.

    The Journal still does some good reporting but is a shell of its former self from a impartial news outlet point of view: http://www.independent.co.uk/n... [independent.co.uk]

    • Agreed. The WSJ was never a bastion of liberal reporting but it was fair. Murdoch pushed it towards a more Fox Newish slant - not off the rocker Fox and Friends, but it's not the business conservative and fair leaning it once had. I remeber the days when they wouldn't hesitate to call out the Republicans on any bullshit they might have pulled.

    • Although not understood well in the U.S., the U.S. news model (prior to Mr. Murdoch coming here) involved trying report the news as objectively and free of a political angle as possible (most U.S. newspapers still do this)

      Really, which ones?

  • I blame you younguns with your damn computer doohickeys and your zap zap devices. In my day we didn't have any of this garbage, this computer nonsense. We didn't even have paper, we had papyrus. Know what that is? And we liked it.

Slashdot Top Deals

BLISS is ignorance.

Close