The New York Times has often blamed the rise of Internet media for its decline in advertising and circulation, ignoring the fat that they no longer report just the facts but more often report according to political agenda.
The Wall Street Journal on the other hand has shown a massive increase of political reporting on the front page and yet they still have seen a slight rise in their circulation.
The difference in the Wall Street Journal since Rupert Murdoch took over can be seen from the style of reporting and the front page content, especially in political cover, which shows that from Dec. 13, 2007 through March 13, 2008, political coverage more than tripled, jumping to 18 percent compared with 5 percent in the four months before the ownership change.
The biggest jump in numbers, in fact, has been in political coverage on the front page.
Murdoch's intentions to be competitive with the New York Ties seems to working to his advantage even though the WSJ has only seen a jump of 0.3 percent, which is very modest, when compared with the 3.5 percent daily and 4.5 for Sunday drop for the New York Times, the numbers take on a whole new meaning.
The WSJ has the same competition from the Internet as the New York Times does, so perhaps the New York Times should start addressing the topic of their agenda reporting vs reporting of actual news.
If not, their numbers will continue to see the type of decline that has plagued them for months on end now.