US: Inside WSJ’s editorial meeting
Posted by Jean Yves Chainon on January 31, 2007 at 5:41 PM
A camera man from WSJ.com shot a video of a meeting of The Wall Street Street Journal’s (WSJ) editorial board. The video is now available on wsj.com, posing as a singular example of newspaper mise en abyme.
While the video may not be extraordinary in itself – board members discussing the battle of Najaf – WSJ’s choice to make it available to the public is a peculiar editorial choice.
Can the video be considered an editorial in itself? Or is it simply a story about WSJ’s editorial meeting? Inevitably, it’s a little of both, making it difficult to draw a line between its opinionated editorial aspect and factual reporting.
If it is meant more as a piece of reporting on WSJ’s editorial board, (as suggested by the title: ‘Inside the Editorial Page’), then there is an intrinsic bias in the content that is selected and the way it is presented.
That doesn’t necessarily make it an offensive or bad editorial move, but underlines the singularity of WSJ’s choice.
What did editors who approved of the video intend to achieve? They must have thought it would appeal to viewers, and that it threw a positive light on the editorial board, or they wouldn’t have included it. Or would they? And so on.
What do you think of this choice?
Source: WSJ.com
Can the video be considered an editorial in itself? Or is it simply a story about WSJ’s editorial meeting? Inevitably, it’s a little of both, making it difficult to draw a line between its opinionated editorial aspect and factual reporting.
If it is meant more as a piece of reporting on WSJ’s editorial board, (as suggested by the title: ‘Inside the Editorial Page’), then there is an intrinsic bias in the content that is selected and the way it is presented.
That doesn’t necessarily make it an offensive or bad editorial move, but underlines the singularity of WSJ’s choice.
What did editors who approved of the video intend to achieve? They must have thought it would appeal to viewers, and that it threw a positive light on the editorial board, or they wouldn’t have included it. Or would they? And so on.
What do you think of this choice?
Source: WSJ.com
Posted in :
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: US: Inside WSJ’s editorial meeting.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.editorsweblog.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1338
Leave a comment