Wall Street Journal Names Moguls Of New Media, Gets It Wrong

The Wall Street Jounal, looking to get a lot of links, asked John Jurgensen to pen an article pointing to the "Moguls of New Media."

Give me a break.

Hey, I'm glad they gave Amanda Congdon some more exposure-- too much is not enough in this case -- but John forgets her ex-partner Andrew Baron. Big mistake.

But it underscores what a joke of an article this is. The definitions of Mogul are:

-a bump on a ski slope
-a member of the Muslim dynasty that ruled India until 1857
-baron: a very wealthy or powerful businessman; "an oil baron"

None of which is listed in the Wall Street Journal's "mogul" list. But considering the WSJ and its author think New Media's just a terms for kids on MySpace -- which is featured in his article and prominently -- it's no wonder this pap was released. It does no one any good at all.

This video asking real New Media players -- people a bit more on the Mogul level -- what New Media is, has the definition in it and does a better job than the WSJ.

...But hey, it's expressed in a new media way, so what should I expect!