The launch of the Wall Street Journal’s New York edition is just around the corner, and Rupert Murdoch is going after the Grey Lady as tenaciously as his massive advertising cuts suggest. But as the playground rivalry heats up and first blows are traded, New York magazine highlights just how much more of a heavyweight contender the Times is in terms of personnel:
Here’s a list of the reporters we know will be devoted, at least part-time, to working on the Journal‘s new New York section. After each, we’ve listed the reporters that cover the same beat for the Times. As you can see, in nearly every beat, the Times already has two reporters in place for each one of the Journal‘s.
The magazine’s full comparative list must make intimidating reading for the Journal reporters heading into the ring, but, as Greenslade points out in his post, the NY Times Company has no way near the resources of News Corp, and the Journal’s New York edition could expand significantly yet.
So, at the end or beginnning of each year, the news pundits predict what’s new and what’s hot for the 12 months ahead, but who then holds them to account? News prediction site Hubdub took a look at the end of 2007 / beginning of 2008 predictions made by news pundits for the year ahead. Which journalists and bloggers were right and which were wrong? And who got it most wrong and took away the illustrious prize of wooden spoon?
NB, Worth a read is Anderson’s reaction to winning the Wooden Spoon award (assuming its the authentic Anderson that wrote it). Not your usual acceptance speech:
“This site is self-embarrassing. Saying that trends cancel predictions is self-serving, and rather goofy. Saying that predictions came true, but you didn’t like some aspect of them, is also silly. I’ve re-read this twice, and it seems these all did in fact come true; I stand by them today, just as I did when I made them. But I won’t be bothering reading this site any more, if your only exercise is to whine, rather than look for the accuracy of these calls.”