0.0001% of WSJ Readers Cancel Subscriptions

Editor and Publisher reports that 170 people have canceled their subscriptions to the Wall Street Journal in protest over Rupert Murdoch’s acquisition, leaving a mere 1,689,130.* Bruce McQuain is skeptical of the news value of this story but, if the trend continues at this rate, the company will be bankrupt in a little over 27 years.

___________

*There’s an old joke about a fellow working at a museum who told visitors that a given dinosaur was 80,000,004 years old. Asked how he could give the date with such specificity, he explained, “Well, when I came to work four years ago, they told me it was 80 million years old . . . .”

FILED UNDER: General, , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is a Security Studies professor at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Triumph says:

    Murdoch doesn’t control the paper yet–I am sure that 99% of subscribers understand that.

    You will likely see higher circulation numbers in the medium to long run. Rupee will likely reduce the price and dumb-down the coverage. I predict that the WSJ will resemble USA Today once he’s firmly in control.

    What will likely happen is that people who want serious analysis and coverage of economic issues will let their subscriptions lapse and replace them gradually with the Financial Times. The NYTimes will probably bulk up its business coverage as well.

    A News Corp. WSJ will probably take readership away from USA Today to replace readers who are turned off by Murdoch’s anti-journalism.

  2. G.A.Phillips says:

    A News Corp. WSJ will probably take readership away from USA Today to replace readers who are turned off by Murdoch’s anti-journalism.

    I don’t understand please clarify?

  3. Grewgills says:

    I don’t understand please clarify?

    I can’t speak for him, but he appears to be saying that the WSJ will end up looking more like the USA Today or the New York Post, as this seems to be the typical News Corp. MO, and people who prefer a more serious paper will find one elsewhere. I tend to agree, but only time will tell. Remember this and take a look at the WSJ a year or so from now.

    BTW the Op-Ed pages won’t likely see much change as they are already ideologically aligned with Murdoch’s other holdings.

  4. Triumph says:

    BTW the Op-Ed pages won’t likely see much change as they are already ideologically aligned with Murdoch’s other holdings.

    Yeah, G-dawg pretty much made my point. Murdoch’s MO is to basically gut news and fill it with fluff and opinion. His outlets don’t really do journalism, meaning breaking important stories. They are filled with celebrity-stuff and sensationalism [although, curiously, The Australian,tends to have some serious news].

    As for the OP-ED, The Wall Street Journal page actually seems a bit to the right of Murdoch.

  5. Bruce McQuain is skeptical of the news value of this story but, if the trend continues at this rate, the company will be bankrupt in a little over 27 years.

    Seems like Orson Welles said something like this once in Citizen Kane.