Dear Wall Street Journal: Cancel My Subscription

When Pamela Anderson has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal (which she probably didn't write, but just attached her name to), it is a sign that the flagship business publication is losing something. I won't really cancel my subscription, but if Anna Nicole Smith writes the next op-ed…

  • I had the same reaction when I read that Katie Couric was going to be the new anchor at CBS News.

    But then I changed my mind. The old business model in journalism is failing. It’s on a decade long slide and can’t go back. It’s time to work out a new model.

    We’re going to have to be flexible and accept some mistakes. I’m letting go of what used to work to search for what will work now.

  • Seems to me that using an attention getting headline that is misleading is more offensive than an editorial clearly labeled as to subject and author.

    You don’t have to read it.

    Evidence the quantity of content that is valuable by the action not to cancel. Personally, I treasure the Wall Street Journal. It gives me many more ideas for my business and clients.

    Steve Pohlit

  • Rob

    Steve, have you ever heard the word ‘ambivalent’? It is a state of holding two contradictory opinions at the same time. That is how I feel about the WSJ. That is why in some ways I feel like cancelling my subscription while at the same time I don’t actually do it.

    Consumers have certain expectations when they read a media source. I except the WSJ not to be People Magazine. The problem isn’t just that it was Pam Anderson. Had she written about something relevant that would have been ok. Celebrities are allowed to have views on business and economics. On the flip side, if a business leader had written the piece it may have been more appropriate, since he/she would have been a person the WSJ follows regularly. The problem is that Pam Anderson in general doesn’t belong in the WSJ, and neither does talk about primates and movies. It’s a double whammy.

    There is a lot of noise in the world, and I prefer to have it filtered for important things. The WSJ helps with that, but in this case, they let me down.

  • J

    Still, Rob, you have to admit you’d read a piece by Anna Nicole on venue shopping and the use of bankruptcy to nullify adverse probate rulings.

  • I agree with Rob on the Pamela Anderson issue. Just out of principle The WSJ takes a credibility hit for spotlighting someone like her.

    She’s vile in nearly every manner possible; philosophically, aesthetically, intellectually, politically – she’s even a bad actress to top it off. The ultimate status symbol of a culture hell bent on self-destruction.