Gay Up the Wall Street Journal?
I had not given much thought about what it means to subscribe to a widely-regarded conservative newspaper such as the Wall Street Journal since I have never directly purchased a subscription. I’ve had prior access to this paper via promotional subscriptions. This time around it came through an offer with my frequent flier miles that were about to expire.
Now that I write for a blog that addresses the finance concerns of a community often left out of the mainstream media, I can’t help but consider a few things about how the WSJ relates to the LGBT market. 1) How many other people in the LGBT community read the Wall Street Journal? 2) Do we feel underrepresented by this major publication? 3) Assuming the WSJ deserves its conservative reputation and does actively ignore the major spending power of the LGBT community, how should we feel about reading this newspaper anyway?
I did some research to help answer these questions for myself.
With estimates of LGBT annual spending power between $400 billion to $641 billion, my argument is that a distinct and significant market such as the LGBT community should not be ignored by the WSJ. Personal finance matters covered by the WSJ reach into topics involving marriage, children, retirement- all exclusively regarding heterosexuals. Given how laws and the uneven cultural acceptance of the LGBT community shape our money matters, we could easily benefit from information with the authority of the WSJ that addresses our specific needs. Our community essentially has few financial resources to rely upon when something goes wrong, like the untimely death of a partner, inheritance or medical expense coverage. State governments will continue to emerge with vastly different same-sex union laws and benefits. Researching, keeping track of and disseminating all that information is too big a job for blogs to do. We clearly need recognition from large news sources which have much greater access to resources and expert opinion. The argument that personal finance can be one-sized fits all without consideration of the LGBT perspective clearly won’t hold water in this context.
My goal is not to vilify the WSJ, nor to initiate an expose about their viewpoint on gays. Rather, I’m suggesting that the conservative reputation is fair, even when neutral coverage is given to their rare attention to LGBT news items. The WSJ is entitled to their opinion, however they are alienating LGBT readers with their cultural insentivity. For instance, when San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom authorized gay marriage licenses in 2004, the WSJ provided a one sentence summary on the front page to acknowledge that it happened. However, when the Mark Foley scandal hit, a full editorial was written asking if a gay Congressman can be quarantined. Selective and negative attention to the LGBT community makes me less likely to want to read anything they have to say about personal finance or the economy.
Furthermore, the WSJ provides no benefit to the LGBT community, nor our image when it answers the question: how to set your TiVo straight if it thinks you’re gay? (The link is a free preview of the paid article.) There are much more productive questions the WSJ can answer than that.
So how do I go back and answer questions I posed to myself? I’m not thrilled about how the WSJ treats LGBT issues, but I’m going to read the WSJ anyway because they cover important money matters that I’m not necessarily going to find anywhere else. For instance, I was introduced to helpful websites such as flyertalk.com and fatwallet.com that provide lots of money-saving tips and deals. The WSJ’s global perspective and news analysis manages to cover topics and events not picked up by other big names like The New York Times or The Washington Post. I’m not going to let this kind of information pass my radar without notice just because the WSJ makes the big mistake of ignoring and mischaracterizing my demographic.
Also, I believe it’s important to stay informed about what this influential paper is saying. If I ever catch anything potentially homophobic, there is no doubt the WSJ will receive a letter to the editor from me setting them straight.
How do you answer these questions?
I am a subscriber to the WSJ. I find the editorial page to be annoying beyond belief, as in the Mark Foley editorial you cite. But the rest of the paper might be better summarized as heteronormative and suburban-presumptive, rather than actively homophobic. The editorial page will shill for anything the right wing wants. Still, I find Jonathan Clements one of the best writers in the financial advice business, and always want to read what he writes. I do wish they could do a once a year or twice a year LBGT financial round-up, the same way they do for all sorts of other subjects. Perhaps we should suggest this to them repeatedly?
As a former subscriber to the WSJ, I would skip the opinion pages. It’s full of conservative crap.
I agree with commenter Rebecca that it’s ‘heteronormative’ (first I’ve heard of this word!). I’m a single urbane female and I don’t think I’m really their target audience. It’s a business paper and the bulk of what they write about is finance. I find the personal finance to be really thin, which is one reason why I stopped subscribing.
Write them a letter. I bet you’ll start seeing more articles if you tell them what would interest you.