I don't see what the problem is. Newspapers overseas have been using front page ads for years.

And it's not like this move is going to turn the Wall Street Journal into the Supermarket Tabloid Daily.

It's "wringing their hands" not "ringing their hands".

Hate to be a stickler, but if you're not, you're lax and that's worse =)

Is there no where I can run to escape the influence of corporate interests? I like the refuge the front page provides. It's like having a blog without banner ads: there's just something nice about it.

Micah: D'oh! Thanks!

Isaac: Even without ads, the front page of the Wall Street Journal is probably just about the last place you'll find refuge from Corporate America.

As a young online producer (an avid newspaper reader), I really don't find ads on the front page (or any page) obtrusive or bothersome.

I certainly would hope they wouldn't bring into question the journalistic standards of the newspaper.

With most newspapers facing declining or stagnant circulations, I think exploring new revenue streams is a good thing -- good, that is, as long as it doesn't affect the core product's integrity.

"I reveal my inmost self unto my God!"

*bows before Atomic Front Page, tears off mask to reveal she is really Helen Thomas*

As was pointed out in the original blog, it's the written content that determines the integrity of a newspaper - not where the ads are.

And, come to think of it, if the WSJ is suffering the same problem as most newspapers worldwide, the ads are there to keep the paper in business so they can actually employ journalists in the first place.

No ads = less income = less journalists = less integrity.

No?

I'm agree with Katie, I don't see any problem here, we have to survice, WSJ or another newspaper, they have to pay large payrolls and hundreds of thousand dollars in paper and print service, so why is the problem?, just, who pay our salary?, the advertisers? so they have to do anything for survive, any paper. (remember we have huge competitor THE INTERNET!)

So, there's no journalistic integrity on the pages *with* ads? C'mon ...

I'll live with them. Especially "branding" ads that don't have little sale-price starbursts touting BANANAS $1.49 LB!

But they'd better damn well charge way more than a full page color ad for the privelege of having their ad on the best real estate in the paper.

Same goes for the growing popularity of odd-shaped ads inside. They'd better charge a premium for these "clutter busters."

The arguement that the front page ads pay our salaries is as bad as the argument to put them there in the first place. Perhaps it's antiquated to belive that there is still some semblance of sanctity in this business, but a front page ad just seems like selling out. We like to look down our noses at marketers and PR people and whatnot, but these arguments don't put us in any better category. How can we continue to insist that the media isn't biased, that our papers are still relevant, that our jobs are worth saving when our bottom line is the same as the corporations who want to put the ads there? Sure, the newspaper is a product, and want to sell it. But shouldn't WE be selling it? But your best work on 1A and let that be the ONLY thing you're selling.

Read this

'But a host of problems have plagued the industry in recent years, forcing publishers to reconsider ways in which to raise money, including giving more prominence to advertisers by tapping into areas of the paper that were once considered sacred. This month, The New York Times began selling advertisements on the front of its business section; the paper had already been selling ads on the front of the Metro section on Sundays.'
We have to understand, is an industry is a business, I know is a bad message for readers and journalist, but, we have to survive, any form, anyway, so, if you want to buy an Ad in News York Times (Front page) go ahead, buy it!

But Nicole, don't many readers buy the paper expressly for the ads? If that's the case, then why can't they have a shot on the front?

I agree with Olds: To decry them only on the front(s) is to join that long gray line of journalists who think that anything not on the front page has little value.

Are we saying that the foreign press, many of whom have large, colorful cover and section-front advertising, have no ethics? That they've sold out?

If that's the case, then why do we so often look to them for inspiration?

I'm not suggesting that items not on the front have little value, but I am suggesting that items on the front have MORE value.

I'm also not talking about ethics, I'm talking about the purity of journalism. There are just as many people who are watching our coverage for good journalism as there are who buy the paper just for the ads.

Plus, putting an ad on the front to cater to people who buy the paper for ads, isn't much of a READER service is it?

I know we all think papers need to change their thinking to survive, but is slapping an ad on 1A the way to do it? That seems like a step backward. Let's try and make sure the innovation targeted at gaining readers comes from the newsroom.

I think the same way, always, but we talking about only small ads, like already WSJ Europe have. quarter page ad or bottom line ad, and unable to believe they want to sell the whole page ad on the front page, that's a journalist crime, I'm totally disagree in that way. I remember before I saw one time, a fake front page ad on the front and after the real front(I can't remember the publication name, maybe was a small community paper), look like a joke not the real journalist.

I don't see any problem with putting an ad on the front page. Newspapers are not just for news. There is a large percentage of the READERS of the newspaper who use the paper strictly for seeking out advertising. Just because they are reading the ads, and possibly not the content, does not make them any less valuable to a paper than its news readers.

they can run an ad on my forehead if it will help stem the decline of readership and save jobs in our industry. but making money really doesn't always translate to keeping staff numbers up, does it?
maybe it's time to stop blaming everyone else and ask a REALLY tough question: have we "designed away" our readers? face it, newspapers don't exactly feel all that authoritative anymore. and a lot of that has to do with the way they look and the voices they convey.