Meantime, Zachary Seward characterizes my farewell note as “scathing.” But nothing about the note is scathing. It is a lament, not a screed.

Sincerely,

Joshua Prager

I subscribed to WSJ since the early 1990′s, but gave it up when they did the 2007 redesign, about a year before Murdoch bought the paper. The articles became shorter and less informative. It went from being The Wall Street Journal to just another newspaper.

There’s still plenty of long form journalism out there, such as Simon Johnson’s article in The Atlantic about the finance industry, Michael Lewis’s article in Vanity Fair about Iceland’s de facto bankruptcy, or Guy Lawson’s excellent article in Rolling Stone about the drug war in Mexico. All these articles went viral on the Internet, becoming incredibly popular, which shows that there is pent up demand for long form even on the web. These are the types of articles I used to find daily in the Wall Street Journal, but now it’s more like a glorified wire service.

There’s still a newspaper called “The Wall Street Journal”, and it superficially looks somewhat the same as it did before, but it’s not even a shell of its former self — more like a pod person that’s taken over the original body.

For me, the kernel of the WSJ are the News in Brief and World in Brief. Not so much for what happened, but for what the Journal editors thought were the most important things that happened. Given that I believe that what the Journal thinks is important will become the common wisdom on Wall Street, that’s an always interesting data point.

Same thing with the news-on-paper NY Times. Page 1 column 8 was what they thought was the most important thing that happened. Page 1 column 1 was the most important thing in the region that happened. Now that the Times gives you the print version architecture on the web, I can get them same info from the click.

Since the Times still defines the common wisdom in Washington and “intellectuals” what is really interesting to me is what they choose. Not so much what they say.

As for long form, one real story per issue would be enough for me to pay either in print or on the web.

I fall squarely in the middle because I’m dismayed that there are fewer features but appreciate the expanded hard news on the rare occasion that I pick up the Journal’s print edition. Back when, I’d buy the Times for my news and the Journal for my analysis, at a total of $2. Now that would cost me $3.50 with no money left for coffee, so I just get the Journal — which of course attests to the Murdoch strategy.

However, as you note, our individual experiences with the Journal aren’t particularly relevant. If the goal is maximum circulation, then general-interest news that appeals to a broader readership is probably the right move. It’s hard enough to survive as a first-read newspaper these days; is there any hope at all in being a second read? —Zach

Yes.

I’ve subscribed to the Journal for almost a decade now because of its uniqueness. I’ve spent 50% less time reading the Journal in the last 6 months than I did in any previous 6-month period during that decade. I have no interest in reading a WSJ that’s an enhanced wire service.

There are other things I don’t like, like the substitution of photographs for the pen-and-ink portraits. But those aren’t dealbreakers. The loss of the articles that made me fell obligated to read the Journal, and guilty when I missed an edition, very well could be a dealbraker.

I don’t claim to speak for anyone else, but I don’t believe I’m the only reader I know that way.