Vanity Fair magazine is one of my indulgences; I used to subscribe but stopped when the stacks of thick, slick issues grew alarmingly high. Now I resist buying the print copy every month, since most of its content is available online, where the amusing James Wolcott holds forth in his blog.
Yet, some issues compel me to buy the print copy, usually because I want to read one of the magazine's long, in-depth pieces on the page, since my patience runs out quickly when I try to read a substantial piece on the computer screen. I bought the new October issue, featuring a cover of Lindsay Lohan looking like Grace Kelly or perhaps Doris Day, to read Sarah Ellison's look at the Wall Street Journal-New York Times newspaper war.
I enjoy watching the war play out from the safety of my own den. We subscribe to both newspapers, which I diligently read, although I often let them pile up during the week. Many lovely Saturday mornings are consumed plowing through newsprint, the previous week's happenings consumed and tossed away in an inky blur.
Alas, our local issue of the Wall Street Journal lacks on of the key weapons of Wall Street Journal maven Rupert Murdoch's assault on the Times, the recently launched New York section. I did get hold of one of the WSJ local sections on a trip to NYC in late May, but the insert made little impression. The reviews have been lukewarm.
Ellison, a forrmer WSJ reporter who wrote a book about how Murdoch wrested the WSJ from the Bancroft family, gives an interesting portrait of the two companies, Murdoch's News Corp. and the Sulzbergers' NYT. She quotes an expert who sees it as the Corleones against the Royal Tannenbaums.
Since taking over the WSJ, Murdoch has moved the newspaper from its specialization in business and financial reporting, increasing its international news and coverage of politics, art, culture and sports. Now the WSJ is launching a stand-alone book review, in another attempt to invade one of the Times' strongholds. With its Personal Journal profiles of musicians, writers and artists, and strong weekend sections, the WSJ impressively covers cultural news. Some of its sports coverage strikes me as elitist and superficial, although I like Jason Gay's weeklly From the Couch column, although his wit is starting to fray.
While I miss the Journal's old business stories, such as the in-depth profiles of a company it used to run, I like the WSJ's international stories. The WSJ often has an interesting story that the Times, with all of its exhaustive coverage, has missed. Judging the two papers on covering the same events is interesting; they differ quite a bit in what they emphasize, their tone, their interpretation of vents. Overall, my impression is that the WSJ is clearer and more readable, the Times more detailed.
Also edifying is the difference between the two papers' editorial stances. On key issues, the economy most strikingly, the papers take totally opposing sides. On international economics, the WSJ shows a depth of knowledge that the Times struggles to match. On questions such as whether the Bush tax cuts should be continued, the Times arguments seem more original and reasoned, while the WSJ falls on formulaic GOP orthodoxy.
Ellison's piece is entertaining and informative to an old newspaper junkie like me. Yet, it leaves the impression of two dinosaurs battling each other in a doomed jungle.