Here's the lead of a Wall Street Journal article about hourly workers:
In the bowels of Boston Logan International Airport, a sign on the door of ABM Industries recently warned would-be job seekers: “WE ARE CURRENTLY NOT HIRING,” it said. “PLEASE KEEP CHECKING.”
This was their premier example of an alleged slowdown in the hiring of hourly workers. The best they had. Something that would grab your attention and reel you in. Nine paragraphs down they add this:
After The Wall Street Journal reached out, inquiring about the sign, the company said it had been removed. ABM continues to accept applications on a rolling basis, and its number of job openings has been stable, the spokesman said.
Oh come on. As usual, this is a Rolodex story based almost entirely on anecdotes. And it's true that no one specifically tracks hourly vs. salaried workers, which makes data hard to come by. But there's this:
Non-supervisory isn't a perfect proxy for hourly workers, but it's close. And I don't see anything special going on. Hiring is slowing down a bit for everyone, as we've known for a while, but there's not much difference between supervisory and non-supervisory growth. If you squint really closely maybe you can suss out the tiniest divergence in July, but that's it.
Are you tired of me nitpicking the Journal's news stories? I know I am. But I'm beginning to think it's just the Daily Mail for people who wear suits: an endless quest for dramatic trend stories that turn out to be tissue-paper thin when you read them closely. I suppose there's no point in asking why. It attracts eyeballs; it panders to their readers' preconceived notions; and most people don't read all that closely anyway. It beats the hell out of real news.
Well, the non-editorial section was not (admittedly some time ago) "the Daily Mail for people who wear suits"
If the shift to online media has cause the normal WSJ sections to lag that is really a loss. What's left, maybe "the Economist?"
SAD
Time was the news section was sacrosanct--the suits needed facts to make their judgements, as much as they enjoyed the batshit op-eds. Sometimes you could find the facts refuting the op-eds in the news section ON THE VERY SAME DAY.
If that's changed and the news section has been Murdoched, you might as well start reading the Onion. WaPo seems headed that way under Sir William Lewis, KB, and the NY Times is busy trying to outdo the Pitchbot in inanity
In general, any piece of text that starts with "In the bowels of .." can be skipped without any loss.
For all that I've been hard on you for some of your nitpicking, you are absolutely not wrong about this:
"it's just the Daily Mail for people who wear suits: an endless quest for dramatic trend stories that turn out to be tissue-paper thin when you read them closely. "
The only thing I'd say is that that's what the Journal has been for at least the last 15 years, if not more. It's just Business Insider or Fast Company with fancier window dressing, which are themselves just Business Buzzfeed.
"...I'm beginning to think it's just the Daily Mail for people who wear suits..."
It's been kind of obvious for quite some time; the textual evidence has been perfectly clear. Ideology above all in the great conservative struggle against the ruthless liberal media complex. And then the Times bends over backwards to show how NOT part of the liberal hegemony project it is, and sends the same distorted message. Whatever else you want to say about modern 'conservatism,' it has and continues to play American media like a chump.
And of course, eyeballs means circulation figures means ad revenue, and the WSJ demographic is wealthy and sought-after. So yes, it's entertainment for rich reactionaries.
It's a shame. Their news coverage used to be sober and reliable (even if their editorial page has always been bonkers). Same with the Vichy Times. Alas for what was.
i'm guessing they have high school interns producing this worthless dreck
"hey babe, freshen my coffee and pop out another trend piece for me, will ya?"
most people are way better off buying and holding index funds as opposed to getting jerked around by the wsj and the rest of the financial press
It's not just the WSJ that does this. Other outlets continue to run primarily anecdotal stories about how bad the economy is. Dean Baker (Beat the Press) often calls these stories out.
+10.
Dean Baker has done a great job calling out NPR, the Times, the Post and other parts of the supposedly liberal MSM for consistently bungling economic news and highlighting frequently completely unrepresentative bad news anecdotes. As Conrad's Ghost pointed out the conservatives have been successful
at playing the MSM like a drum for years, particularly on the economy. Perhaps some of our "elites" in the media fall into the old category of "limousine liberals", happy to strut their bone fides if a particular social issue strikes their fancy, but not all that interested in the economic side ot the progressive agenda.
"It attracts eyeballs; it panders to their readers' preconceived notions ...."
It sets up unstable positive feedback loops. But how is it that the WSJ can get away with doing this year after year?
...an endless quest for dramatic trend stories that turn out to be tissue-paper thin when you read them closely.... It attracts eyeballs; it panders to their readers' preconceived notions; and most people don't read all that closely anyway.
I don't see where that description doesn't apply for every news outlet. Truly.
Anybody who wants to remain sane about the stock market should not pay close attention to day-to-day financial news. Likewise, if you want to understand the economy, take the long view and don't read the WSJ every day. The reality is that every day there's conflicting news, both positive and negative. Which would be confusing enough if editorial slant (which is universal) wasn't putting a thumb on the scale to engage -- i.e., scare -- news consumers. That algorithm goes back long before the internet, but in today's hyper-competitive over-saturated news ecosystem, all news media is essentially tabloid news media, If it bleeds, it leads -- and if it doesn't bleed, we'll make it bleed for you. When I woke up this morning, I saw something like six headlines on various Wall Street firms' odds of a recession (from 0% that one's coming to 40% that we're already in one). Even if that means we're not heading toward a recession, the editors would certainly like us to worry about one. (Or maybe since the investing class tilts conservative, it's meant to put a smile on the face of anyone worried about Democrats keeping the White House).
It beats the hell out of real news.
There's not enough real news to fill the content needs of all the 24x7 cable news channels and 24x7 newspapers. We were better informed when we had less "news."
I was going to disagree with you until your final paragraph. THIS. Because the fact of the matter is that it is local news that should be exciting. The national news? Not so much.
"Attracts eyeballs" and "panders," yes, and from the hawk's-eye view also advances in snippets a mostly-coherent narrative about the overall economy, the business environment, the nature of non-executive employees, the ignorance and evil machinations of civil servants, the overweening malice of center and center-left political figures, the guarded trustworthiness of center-right and rightist political figures, and the god-like righteousness of reactionary political figures and reactionary uber-wealthy individuals. Roughly the views of Rupert and Lachlan, I think.
My favorite WSJ articles are the ones that report some disturbing trend and they include a helpful graph, which invariably shows the opposite of what the article says. Don't they have editors at WSJ?
Thank you to Mr. Drum for writing "lead" and not "lede".
Well, lead has been a frequent focus of his for many years…
Kaching! This is what I come here for: Reasonably erudite snarkiness [1] with absolutely no ill will. If Kevin's readers ever met up we'd be throwing dinner rolls at each other within the first five minutes.
[1] And the graphs, of course, though technically I suppose they're plots.
The Wall Street Journal went down the tubes before the NYTimes, followed by WaPo. Not much left to read with truth and integrity anymore.
Ain’t the democratization of world-wide information sharing wonderful? … Hyperdrive to the mean.
My current whimsical theory is that it is a very patient, low-fi market manipulation technique.
The editors publish with an eye towards either creating greed or fear and trade on the movement.
Aside from (very nice) beer money, it could serve as a measure of the paper's influence.
Meanwhile, did you see 538's average? Harris +2.7. Still gaining momentum.
Ten thumbs. Plus two.
Phony trendspotting used to be confined largely to the lifestyle section (especially the NYT). Its migration to the economic news section of the WSJ is a very unwelcome thing.
The WSJ itself is a very unwelcome thing.
But I'm beginning to think it's just the Daily Mail for people who wear suits: an endless quest for dramatic trend stories that turn out to be tissue-paper thin when you read them closely.
Yes, thank you! Glad you've finally seen the light! I think it's been obvious for a long time, but at least you made it here too!
Good news, everyone!
Urban birds are teeming with antibiotic-resistant bacteria, study finds,
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/13/urban-birds-are-teeming-with-antibiotic-resistant-bacteria-study-finds
"I'm beginning to think it's just the Daily Mail for people who wear suits:"
You'd rate it that highly ? Just another Murdoch 'identity politics' rag that was once upon a time an approximation to a genuine news outlet ?