Elon Musk’s Twitter—now officially X—has a complicated relationship with the news industry. It's messy. If you've spent any time on the platform lately, you've probably noticed that the way we consume articles from legacy giants like The Wall Street Journal has shifted. It’s not just about the name change or the blue checks anymore. It’s about how information actually moves through the pipes of the internet.
For years, Twitter and the Wall Street Journal existed in a symbiotic loop. Journalists used the platform to break news, and the platform used those journalists to maintain its status as the "global town square." But that loop is fraying. Musk has been vocal about his disdain for traditional media, often labeling mainstream outlets as "propaganda." Meanwhile, the WSJ continues to gate its high-tier financial reporting behind a strict paywall, creating a natural friction with a platform that thrives on instant, free-flowing viral content.
The Algorithm War on External Links
Ever notice how a tweet with just text or a native video seems to blow up, but a link to a news article feels like it’s screaming into a void? You aren't imagining it. The current architecture of X is designed to keep you on X. When a reporter from The Wall Street Journal shares a groundbreaking investigation into Fed interest rates or a corporate merger, the algorithm doesn't exactly roll out the red carpet.
Basically, external links are treated like a virus by the ranking system. If you want to see what the WSJ is reporting, you often have to find a "screenshotter"—someone who captures the headline and the first three paragraphs so you don't have to click away. This has led to a strange game of cat and mouse. News organizations want the traffic, but the platform wants the "dwell time." It’s a classic business conflict.
Musk vs. The Newsroom
The tension between Twitter and The Wall Street Journal reached a fever pitch during several high-profile incidents involving journalist suspensions and "state-affiliated" labeling. While the WSJ hasn't faced the same level of direct friction as, say, the New York Times (which lost its gold checkmark for a period), the editorial stance of the Journal has remained sharp.
WSJ reporters like Dustin Volz and Keach Hagey have consistently covered the internal chaos at X, from advertiser flight to the technical glitches during major live events. Musk, in turn, often responds to these reports with one-word replies or memes. It’s a bizarre spectacle. On one hand, you have one of the most respected financial papers in the world trying to apply rigorous standards to a company that is essentially being run as a fast-moving, high-stakes startup. On the other, you have a billionaire who views the "legacy media" as a relic of the past.
👉 See also: E-commerce Meaning: It Is Way More Than Just Buying Stuff on Amazon
The Paywall Problem
The Wall Street Journal is famous for its "hard" paywall. Unlike some sites that give you three free articles a month, the Journal usually wants your money immediately. On the old Twitter, this was a badge of honor. Sharing a WSJ link meant you were "in the know."
Now? The paywall is a barrier to virality.
When a story breaks—like the WSJ’s reporting on Musk’s own reported drug use or his SpaceX leadership style—the conversation on X happens in the replies, often led by people who haven't even read the full article because they can't get past the subscription prompt. This creates a massive game of "telephone." One person summarizes the article (maybe accurately, maybe not), and that summary becomes the truth for the next 10,000 people who see the post.
Why the "Verification" Shift Changed Everything
Remember when the blue check meant you were actually who you said you were? For WSJ reporters, that was a tool of the trade. It signaled to sources and readers that this was an official account.
When the verification system shifted to a paid model (X Premium), the signal-to-noise ratio plummeted. Now, a random account with $8 can look just as "official" as a Pulitzer-winning journalist from the Journal at a quick glance. This has forced newsrooms to rethink their social strategy. Some WSJ staff have maintained their presence, while others have migrated or simply post less frequently. The "Gold Check" for organizations was supposed to fix this, but at $1,000 a month (initially), it felt more like a tax on the press than a feature.
✨ Don't miss: Shangri-La Asia Interim Report 2024 PDF: What Most People Get Wrong
Breaking News in the Age of Citizen Journalism
Musk’s vision is "Citizen Journalism." He wants the people on the ground to be the ones reporting the news, not the "editors in New York." But there’s a flaw in that logic when it comes to complex business reporting.
If a major bank is about to collapse, a "citizen" on the street isn't going to have the balance sheet analysis. You need the Wall Street Journal for that. You need the person who has been covering the Treasury for twenty years. The conflict between Twitter and The Wall Street Journal is essentially a conflict between "speed/opinion" and "accuracy/depth." X is winning on speed. The WSJ is still winning on depth.
Advertisers are Caught in the Middle
This isn't just a fight about words; it's a fight about dollars. The Wall Street Journal's parent company, News Corp, relies on a clean, brand-safe environment for its own advertising. When the WSJ reports on the rise of "toxic" content on X, it directly impacts X’s bottom line because advertisers read the WSJ.
It's a feedback loop.
- WSJ reports on X's declining ad revenue or content moderation issues.
- Advertisers see the report and pull their budgets.
- Musk blasts the media for "killing" the platform.
- The WSJ reports on Musk's reaction.
How to Actually Use X for News Now
If you want to follow Twitter and The Wall Street Journal interactions without getting lost in the weeds, you have to be intentional. Following the official @WSJ account is a start, but the real value is in following the individual beats.
🔗 Read more: Private Credit News Today: Why the Golden Age is Getting a Reality Check
- Follow the Tech Reporters: Look for people like Alexa Corse who cover the platform specifically.
- Use Lists: Don't rely on the "For You" feed. It's tuned for engagement, not accuracy. Create a private list of verified WSJ journalists.
- Check the Timestamps: In the rush to be first, "citizen journalists" often get things wrong. Wait for the WSJ link to appear, even if the snippet is all you can read.
The relationship between these two entities is probably the best proxy we have for the state of the modern internet. It’s loud, it’s contentious, and it’s deeply polarized. But despite the friction, they need each other. X needs the credibility of real news to keep people from leaving entirely, and the WSJ needs the distribution that only a viral platform can provide.
Making Sense of the Future
We are moving toward a "bifurcated" news reality. On one side, you have the "free" news on X, which is fast but often lacks context or is heavily slanted by the user's bias. On the other, you have the "premium" news from the Wall Street Journal, which is vetted but increasingly locked away from the general public.
The bridge between them is getting thinner.
If you're trying to stay informed, the best move isn't to pick a side. It's to recognize the limitations of both. Don't trust a tweet just because it has high engagement, and don't assume a legacy outlet is always right just because they have a fancy building in Manhattan.
Next Steps for Staying Informed:
First, stop relying on the "For You" algorithm for breaking news; it’s optimized for outrage, not updates. Instead, take five minutes to build a "News" list on X and manually add the handles of 10-15 WSJ reporters who cover the sectors you care about (finance, tech, policy). This bypasses the algorithmic suppression of links. Second, if you encounter a paywalled WSJ article that is trending, use tools like the "Archive" today or check if your local library provides a digital login—never rely on the "summary" provided in the X replies, as these are frequently stripped of crucial nuance or context. Finally, keep an eye on the "Community Notes" under news links; they are currently the most reliable way to see if a headline is being taken out of context by the person sharing it.