Commentary by Randy Davidson, CEO & founder of Georgia Entertainment
Editor’s Note: The writer of the opinion piece in reference is Cole Murphy, a graduate of Georgia Tech and part of the Joseph Rago Memorial Fellowship program with the Wall Street Journal.
On Friday, the Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece titled “Georgia’s Film Tax Incentive Bombs at the Box Office.” Others are addressing specific factual claims, but it is equally important to examine how this piece came together. The author raises several points worthy of discussion, and this is not an effort to dispute them here. Rather, the concern is that many industry leaders were engaged as sources under the expectation of a journalistic inquiry, only to see that access used to advance an opinion framed as reported analysis.
In late August 2025, The Wall Street Journal published a story examining Marvel’s decision to move much of its production activity out of Georgia. The piece was classified as news, and while the data points cited were real, the central premise wasn’t new to anyone actually working inside Georgia’s film and entertainment industry. Marvel’s shift had been known, discussed, debated and modeled internally for some time. Still, the WSJ chose to amplify it. Fair.
So when, later in the fall and early winter, a young Georgia-based “writer and editor at the Wall Street Journal” began reaching out to filmmakers, studio executives, producers and myself, the response was largely positive. Here, finally, seemed to be an opportunity to add nuance. To provide context. To explain not just what had slowed, but what had been built, and why states, cities and countries around the world are still racing to replicate it.
The outreach was designed to feel like journalism. Here is what was shared with nearly all the targets I spoke with this weekend:
“I am a writer and editor at the Wall Street Journal. I am working on a story about how the Georgia film industry is adapting to changes in the broader entertainment industry.”
Interviews were requested. Quotes were gathered. Contacts were shared. Conversations were candid. I personally told this writer that people were giving him their time and access in good faith, with the expectation of fairness and balance. By all accounts, that expectation was reinforced across the board. The representation was clear: this was an effort to understand what was really happening in Georgia’s film industry.
An author’s introduction as a WSJ writer carries a very different expectation than participation in a fellowship program that is widely understood to produce opinion and commentary. Only later, after interviews were conducted, contacts shared and trust extended, did it become clear that the article was written as part of the Journal’s Joseph Rago Memorial Fellowship, a respected internship program, one commonly associated with opinion writing and the launch of early careers.
Had that been clearly stated upfront, many of us would have approached those conversations with a different lens.
To everyone’s surprise, the final piece landed as a WSJ “opinion” piece, published under the formidable institutional banner of the Wall Street Journal. The reporting techniques of journalism were used to gather material, but the responsibility that comes with reporting was sidestepped by classification. The WSJ effectively insulated the work by labeling it opinion.
The slowdown is real. Labor costs matter. Global competition is fierce. We know this. We live it. What we didn’t know was that candid conversations about these realities would be strip-mined for an opinion piece we were never told was being written.
There was no meaningful engagement with the overwhelming consensus among economists and economic-development professionals that storytelling, creators and intellectual property are among the most powerful growth engines available to modern economies. Data was shared with the author such as the highly-regarded Olsberg study.
Georgia didn’t stumble into this industry by accident. Over nearly two decades, the state has built world-class stages, trained crews, fostered ancillary businesses and created pathways for Georgians, many of whom never imagined working in entertainment, to build sustainable careers at home. That economic development is real. The jobs, wages, and downstream impact are real.
Ignoring this history while focusing narrowly on a downturn isn’t balance; it’s omission. Well, it’s an opinion. Fair.
Opinion writing has an important place. Commentary is valuable. Criticism is healthy. But opinion should be honest about what it is, and publications should be equally honest about how it’s produced. Opinion writers don’t get to borrow a reporter’s credibility and then discard a reporter’s obligations.
Georgia’s ranking as the most desirable place to do business has many parts and can be complex. We can acknowledge challenges without erasing progress. We can debate incentives without pretending they created nothing of value. We can talk about labor dynamics without ignoring global cost pressures or cyclical market behavior.
The next time someone asks for access under the banner of journalism, clarify upfront, just in case the writer or media source doesn’t see the distinction.
Let us know your thoughts here.
Is it personal?
I’ve been asked more than once: Does The Wall Street Journal have it out for Georgia? The short answer is no and that’s actually the more important point.
After looking at other pieces by this writer and reviewing similar work produced through various Journal internships and early-career programs, a pattern becomes clear. It’s about attention.
The Journal’s core paid subscription base of executives, policymakers, institutional readers is mature and generally locked in. Growth now comes from impulse moments: breaking narratives, cultural flashpoints and regional industries under pressure.
That’s the revenue model. Studied, precise and surgical.
Friday evening, when the story was published online, I received a text during our Sundance event. I had to read it immediately. So I purchased a subscription on the spot. I will likely cancel it just as quickly. But that’s the point. The transaction already happened.
This is how modern media monetization works. Create urgency. Frame conflict. Publish under a trusted masthead. Convert interest into a short-term subscription. Move on.
Seen through that lens, it’s not personal. It’s structural.
So no, the WSJ isn’t targeting Georgia. Understanding that distinction doesn’t make the coverage better, but it does make it easier to see what’s really happening.
