WSJ Lodged In 1926

Guest blogger Paul Talbot responds to guest blogger Bill Grimes about the Wall Street Journal.
Despite its efforts to contemporize, the Journal’s editorial position remains lodged in 1792 or 1926. The ghosts of Andrew Hamilton and Calvin Coolidge float off every page. Fortunately, the paper publishes one fine editorial each year, which, hopefully, we’ll be able to read once again this coming Wednesday.
The focus group-spawned efforts to contemporize the WSJ are reminiscent of Frank Sinatra circa 1967, sliding into a lemon-colored Nehru jacket and brushing what was left of his hair down over his forehead. Just not happening.
A piece on Heidi Klum back on the catwalk? Seems as if there’s a bit of TMZ envy at the WSJ.
As we consider the expanded collection of stories the WSJ does publish, let’s consider the stories it does not publish. Which backwaters of America it has no interest in. Which shibboleths of conservatism and business go largely unexamined.
Would the Journal’s editorial content be stronger without the broken-down parade of disgruntled supply-siders in search of redemption and relevance? Can we get the hook for these sad attempts to prop up Sarah Palin?
Unfortunately, the Journal’s makeover, certainly costlier than Ms. Palin’s, doesn’t seem to have softened the shrill tone of the paper, which is largely lacking in compassion and remains dismissive of human frailties.
So you’re a 28 year-old single mom working nights at an Arby’s in Jackson, Mississippi and you’re strangled with credit card debt because you bought that Samsung 46” LCD HDTV at Wal-Mart? Well, tough luck, you should have known better. Instead of watching Mo-Nique on BET you should be reading Benjamin Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor.” And don’t worry about usury laws, the free market will sort out your interest payments. Just keep your job and save your money.
Of course, the Journal is an essential, credible, exemplary, ingredient both in the American discourse and American journalism.
But it needs to proceed with caution. Headlining a collection of pieces of health care issues under the umbrella “ObamaCare” is pejorative, inaccurate, and cutesy. There is no need for the Journal to squander its credibility with these kinds of tawdry Murdoch tabloid trappings.
And Heidi Klum and Calvin Coolidge make for strange content bedfellows.