'N.Y. Times' Defends Circ Reporting in its 'WSJ' Story

By: E&P Staff The New York Times said Wednesday that there was nothing inaccurate or misleading in a story earlier this week that asserted The Wall Street Journal's circulation growth increasingly depended on discounted subscriptions.

"There isn't anything inaccurate or misleading in the Times story," said Diane McNulty, the paper's executive director of community affairs and media relations.

The article's assertions about the Journal's circulation were taken from the newspaper's most recent report, for the six month period ended last Sept. 30, to the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC).

That report showed that individual paid copies sold for between 25% and 49% of basic cost had increased 81,441 copies, or 19%, between the 2008 reporting period and the same period in 2007. The Journal's individual paid for 50% or more of basic cost fell 47,443 copies, or 5%, during the same period. Total paid circulation for the 2008 period was up 33,998 copies, or 2% --- in a period when nearly all large-circulation newspapers showed declining circ.

After the article appeared, the Journal put out a statement saying the Times had "wrongly reported" that its circulation growth increasingly has depended on heavy discounting since Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. bought Dow Jones & Co. a year ago. The Journal said it had "moved away" from deep discounting in 2008, and raised both its introductory subscription price and its single-copy cover price.

A spokesperson for Dow Jones noted Tuesday that the paper had eliminated an introductory offer for a combined print and online subscription for $99. An offer on the newspaper's Web site had a price of $2.69 a week for the print and online editions, with an annual payment of $140

The main theme of the Times article, which was headlined, "The Media Baron and His Soft Spot," was that Murdoch's affection for newspapers was a financial drag on his diversified media empire. Circulation of the Journal was mentioned in passing.

But the Journal's statement also said that the article included "many erroneous assumptions and speculations."

The Times' McNulty noted that the Journal did not detail just what those assumptions and speculations were.