Most sane investors know not to take anything at face value from the rabid idealogues who live in the WSJ Op-Ed section.  But regardless of how you feel about the page, you gotta laugh at this comic:

Ltt070718gif

Tom Toles via Yahoo!

Category: Uncategorized

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

31 Responses to “Murdoch & the WSJ Editorial Page”

  1. Bucky Katt says:

    I agree with you Barry, the WSJ op-ed page is somewhat unbalanced, same as Fox news.

  2. michael schumacher says:

    the comment in the bottom right corner is the real joke…….

    Ciao
    MS

  3. yoshi says:

    If you want rabid ideologues – try the investors business daily … they make WSJ look liberal by comparison

  4. Tom C., Stamford,Ct. says:

    yoshi- what does ‘liberal’ mean to you?

    I’ve rarely seen a more ‘rabid’ political bunch than on this blog.

  5. Chris says:

    Oh please, Barry. If we are going to start debating ‘biased’ editorial pages, let’s be fair and balanced and not forget the NY Times or Washington Post.

  6. Norman says:

    Thank God for the rational thinkers on the NYT’s editorial pages: Krugman, Dowd, Rich.

  7. BayAreaGuy says:

    I’ve long had a tremendous respect for the competence and business-minded objectivity of the WSJ reporting staff. The reactionaries on the Op-ed page are a different matter entirely. Unfortunately, now that Murdoch is taking over, there will no longer be any difference. I cancelled my subscription two days ago, as I won’t have FOX News in my house, either on TV or in a newspaper.

  8. Chief Tomahawk says:

    Off topic, but BR the Anniversary Sale began at Nordstrom’s today. The women’s shoe section was a zoo.

  9. Tom C., Stamford,Ct. says:

    People who describe those they disagree with as ‘rectionaries’ should be discounted. What’s a ‘reactionary’? Check your Althusser and your Gramsci and get back to me.

  10. Tom C., Stamford,Ct. says:

    People who describe those they disagree with as ‘rectionaries’ should be discounted. What’s a ‘reactionary’? Check your Althusser and your Gramsci and get back to me.

  11. Tom C., Stamford,Ct. says:

    No idea how this posted twice. My apologies.

  12. Bob A says:

    I agree as well but I can’t help but ad the the cartoon could just as well be describing Larry Kudlow’s show…

  13. OkieLawyer says:

    Tom C.:

    I am not sure what point you were trying to make; but “reactionary” is a well-established word in political science. It means:

    A person who vehemently, often fanatically opposes progress and favors return to a previous condition: die-hard, mossback, ultraconservative.

  14. Tom C., Stamford,Ct. says:

    okielawyer- The term has it’s roots in revolutionary France and was appropriated by marxist leninists and employed by them, as did the Jacobins, to tar all who disagreed with their program. A term of political opprobrium which at it’s root is almost meaningless. Kind of like ‘racist, sexist, islamaphobe or global warming denier’. Commonly employed as an ad hominem in a lame attempt to discredit any opposition among the ignorant.

  15. Tia says:

    The most reactionary people I know are self identified progressives.

  16. bonghiteric says:

    Jesus H people its just a cartoon in the WSJ.

  17. Tom C., Stamford,Ct. says:

    tia- ‘Progressives’ can’t be ‘reactionary’. It’s a term natural to the black and white world of the ‘left’. It only has meaning to them and used to end the discussion and, as in it’s original Jacobin usage, demonize any opposition in order to rationalize ‘The Terror’ and the guillotine. It’s a stupid and meaningless term.

  18. RW says:

    Okielawyer, I’d guess that when somebody has been labeled a reactionary a few too many times they might want to fire off the first dismissive, ad hominem rounds for a change.

    Or something like that (if I can find an old copy of The Revolution against Das Kapital somewhere I’ll check and get back to you).

    The cartoon was hilarious too.

  19. Any medium that is supplying information for the primary purpose of earning a profit is not to be trusted. That’s why blogs are popular. Most blogs have little or no competing interests because the authors’ primary purpose is to display their knowledge by sharing it with others. The blog readers are free to agree or not and there is often a means, like this comment forum, to offer dissenting views. The blog’s content is not being “sold” so there is no incentive to sensationalize.

    Of course there are idealogues in the blogosphere as well. Intelligent individuals will have the ability to read information and filter out the “noise” and obtain the underlying value, if any, in the supplied information — regardless of the source, and use it for their own benefit…

  20. donna says:

    Wow, lots of “labelers” here. Do any of you who choose to address others by labels really think about things? It seems to me that labeling people by groups is definitely reactionary….

    I guess that’s easier than thinking about what people are actually saying, though.

  21. Tom C.,Stamford,Ct. says:

    Who labeled the op/ed page of the WSJ as run by ‘rabid ideologues’ and who agrees with that asessment? The ‘reactionaries’?

  22. fred says:

    I think some people here are confusing the Ed page with the OP-Ed page, and are missing what the worry is for the WSJ. Pieces written with no by-line are editorial and pieces with by-lines are opinion. The former are found on the editorial page, and the latter on the op-ed (opposite the editorial). The fuss over the WSJ has nothing to do with what is written on these pages. It is about what the Editors who control content in the newspaper as a whole will tell journalists they can and can’t write.

  23. FosterPhinney says:

    good point tom c

  24. rebound says:

    The Fox News brand damage to the WSJ is going to be enormous. What a shame.

  25. muckdog says:

    Donna makes a good point. We’re at an extremely contentious point in the country. I think there are 1/3rd of folks glued to the right, 1/3rd of the folks glued to the left, and 1/3rd of folks reacting to news and changing their minds here and there.

    We know what’s going on at RedState and DailyKos, but it’s the final 1/3rd of folks we don’t hear much from.

    And this day and age, who cares what is written on any Op-Ed page? Does it matter if the WSJ is owned by Murdoch? And why? Will it change the minds of the DailyKossers or RedStaters? No. Will it change the middle 1/3rd who don’t even read the Op-Eds?

  26. DavidB says:

    The top 100 papers in America exist solely to push the agenda of the ultra elites. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or under 25(nowadays maybe under 30)

  27. me says:

    “The Fox News brand damage to the WSJ is going to be enormous.”

    That is the point. Are you going to believe anything about China in the news section. Anybody that doesn’t believe that Big Rupert wants to do business and will tell the journalists to cool it on advertisers or countries.

    The man already admitted he tried to use Faux Nuze to elect more republicans in the last election.

    I read the WSJ for news, not propaganda. If you want to trust Murdock’s integrity that’s fine Tom. And I don’t read the Times or Post for objective investment facts and news.

  28. Frankie says:

    “yoshi- what does ‘liberal’ mean to you?

    I’ve rarely seen a more ‘rabid’ political bunch than on this blog.”

    Really?
    Is it the first time since the beginning of this century that you take a peek outside the confines of your cave?

    Francois

  29. Frankie says:

    “A term of political opprobrium which at it’s root is almost meaningless.”

    Exactly what the term “liberal” has become! Meaningless, catch-all for those who cannot, or would not make an effort to think by themselves.

    Thank you Tom C.

  30. Tom C., Stamford,Ct. says:

    frankie- you’re welcome?

  31. chad says:

    as a rabid idealogue, the only thing that makes me nervous about rupert buying the wsj, is that he won’t live another 30 years.

    his heirs will roll over to the ankle biting of the nytimes and make the editorial page as bland, and predictable as that of the nytimes.

    i just hope i’m wrong