You are using an outdated browser.
Please upgrade your browser
and improve your visit to our site.
Skip Navigation

Murdoch's Iowa Edits?

I just picked up office copies of today's New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, with an eye to comparing their coverage of a historic night. The Post and Times were falling all over themselves to broadcast the Iowa results--in both papers, some 60 percent of page A1 (above the fold) is devoted to full-color announcement of the Huckabee/Obama wins. Barack and Michelle smile and wave; Huckabee signs things for tots; the feeling on these pages is one of confetti-tossing joy. 

Not so in the Journal. The major headline reads: "PCs Take a Stylish Turn in Bid to Rival Apple." A thin right-hand column about the importance of independents in New Hampshire bears the burden of election coverage, with a lede that only hints at the Iowa result while breezily discounting its importance. The inside coverage, on A8, is a dour rehash of pre-caucus informatics, featuring half-hearted charts and now-dated poll averages. 

Murdoch and company's sin of omission is well-noted. Non-conspiracy theorists may submit that the WSJ went to press before editors could cobble together a story on the caucuses (called by networks c. 8:55 and 9:25pm). But to me this reads as unsubtle protectionism--shielding establishment candidates (and WSJ darlings) Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton from their own poor showings, and making Iowa into a Non-Story for their readers. This also happens to be horrific journalism. Earth to Murdoch: Get someone on deadline to write up the biggest story of this short year, or get out of the business.

P.S. The website got it together by morning, but grudgingly.

--Dayo Olopade