This morning, Joe Nocera offers up his Mea Culpa on the Murdoch purchase of the WSJ. The Journal Becomes Fox-ified:

As a business story, the News of the World scandal isn’t just about phone hacking and police bribery. It is about Murdoch’s media empire, the News Corporation, being at risk — along with his family’s once unshakable hold on it. The old Wall Street Journal would have been leading the pack in pursuit of that story.

Now? At first, The Journal ignored the scandal, even though, as the Murdoch biographer Michael Wolff pointed out in Adweek, it was front-page news all across Britain. Then, when the scandal was no longer avoidable, The Journal did just enough to avoid being accused of looking the other way. Blogging for Columbia Journalism Review, Dean Starkman, the media critic, described The Journal’s coverage as “obviously hamstrung, and far, far below the paper’s true capacity.”

Regular readers of TBP were warned many years ago that Murdoch was less interested in pursuing journalism, and more interested in his own political agenda. What was once the best paper in America became a mere tool in that pursuit.

Rather than recognize the unique strength of the Journal as a Wall Street institution, we warned in 2008 that Murdch would “De-Financialize” the WSJ. Not too long after, the paper saw prize winning reporters defecting for NYT and other papers.

The editorial page has always been batshit crazy, but you expect that to stay sequestered fromt he business of Journalism. No longer. As Nocera points out:

“Along with the transformation of a great paper into a mediocre one came a change that was both more subtle and more insidious. The political articles grew more and more slanted toward the Republican party line. The Journal sometimes took to using the word “Democrat” as an adjective instead of a noun, a usage favored by the right wing. In her book, “War at The Wall Street Journal,” Sarah Ellison recounts how editors inserted the phrase “assault on business” in an article about corporate taxes under President Obama. The Journal was turned into a propaganda vehicle for its owner’s conservative views. That’s half the definition of Fox-ification.”

And to me, the great tragedy has been the spoiling of what was once a tremendous asset. We noted the OpEd madness creeping onto the front page and then other stories 18 months ago in WSJ Jumps the Shark.

The good news is the WSJ can be saved. NewsCorp (NWS) is actually a highly profitable company that could easily be cleaved into (profitable) entertainment and (less profitable) news. Spin Dow Jones back out as a standalone company, and let their editors and reporters do what they do best without interference from a modern day Foster Kane.

Murdoch has had an out-sized influence on the political processes on 3 continents and numerous countries. In the UK, he is facing possible charges of corrupting Scotland yard. After years of bullying Parliament into submission, the MPs smell blood in the water and appear to be out for revenge.

In the US, Murdoch’s Fox News has coarsened the political process and LITERALLY made the American public dumber. Fox News viewers consistently rank amongst the least knowledgeable, worst informed people when it comes to the FACTS about the issues of the day. Over the short run, it has been a cynical yet highly profitable infotainment machine, but ultimately, highly destructive to our body polity.

You cannot have a functional Democracy without a vigorous press and a well informed electorate. Here’s to hoping that the net effect of the unfolding scandal is a more aggressive press run by Journalists, and fewer media barons mucking up the process.



Murdoch’s WSJ Changes Creates Opening for NYT, FT (April 24th, 2008)

Read It Here First: “De-Financializing” the WSJ (April 28th, 2008)

Why Are WSJ Reporters Defecting for NYT ? (August 31st, 2010)

WSJ Jumps the Shark (January 22nd, 2010)


The Journal Becomes Fox-ified
NYT July 15, 2011

Category: Financial Press, Really, really bad calls

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.

55 Responses to “Read It Here First: WSJ Becomes Fox-ified”

  1. Freestate says:

    “Batshit crazy” is a perfect description of WSJ editorial page. I have found that I no longer need the WSJ and canceled my (very expensive) subscription.

  2. rktbrkr says:

    This was inevitable but sad nonetheless.

    I keep getting email pitches to resubscribe, they attempted to resubscribe me (without my OK) but my credit card had expired.

    They should have zero subscribers. I really enjoyed the print edition.

    This is all part of dumbing down the country

  3. ancientone says:

    My greatest hope is that somehow all of this will weaken Murdoch’s power to misinform the gullible public, but I’m not holding my breath waiting for it to happen; that would be too much to hope for. I have witnessed too many decades of things going wrong and getting worse to hope that it would suddenly start getting better.

  4. DeDude says:

    I am not sure that anything can save the traditional corporate media. I find myself using those a lot less and using blogs like this a lot more. Even a lot of my corporate media exposure actually comes through high quality filters like this website. It just takes to much time sorting through all the dirt to find the few gold nuggets even in non-foxified corporate media. Problem is that many internet blogs are a lot worse than Fox when it comes to inventing “facts” and suppressing information. So whereas this blog may help you get closer to reality, other blogs may get people even further separated from facts and reality. So the political debate will no longer be around different interpretations of the same reality, but a fight between people living in the same country but referring to a different set of facts and realities.

  5. DeDude says:


    If some Fox-connected outlet has actually attempted to hack into 9/11 victims phones then the whole brand could get dirt on it in a way nobody can even begin to imagine. It could become completely “un-patriotic” to have anything to do with anything connected to Murdoch – sort of a sudden awakening in style with what happened with McCarthy and “have you no shame”.

  6. Lee Gibson says:

    I’ve kept my online subscription to Barron’s, as the lunacy hasn’t bled over there (except for some of the columnists–Epstein and McTague primarily). But the WSJ itself is almost worthless as a news source so far as I’m concerned. And your comments about the coarsening effect of Fox News on the public discourse are exactly right.

  7. Moss says:

    ‘This is all part of dumbing down the country.’

    This is the sad truth and unfortunately has been successful if one uses the ratings of Fox as a barometer.
    The Fox-ification strategy employed by Murdoch is a microcosm of the hypocrisy, deception and fraud that has infected all aspects of society. The emphasis on politics demonstrates that the bought and paid for politicians are the conduit for the trivialization of any debate.

  8. markd says:

    My question to the hive mind and esp. Barry , What is Murdoch’s end game ? why does he want to run these relentless propaganda machines?

  9. freejack says:

    Kudos on the post BR.
    The change in the WSJ since Murdock took over is a testament to the differing views between the corporatists and the democratists on the function of the media. The latter see informed discourse as the primary function of the media, while the former see the media as primarily a tool for marketing and public relations.

  10. tude says:

    What is his end game? What is the end game of any of the truly evil, power hungry people on this globe? I will never really understand what drives so many men to ultimate power over others, but there have been many of them over the centuries, it’s all the same. There is no “end game”, there’s just the game, and whether one is winning or losing at any one moment.

  11. rileyx67 says:

    Ended my on-line subscription to once superb financial and other news source as saw Murdoch politicizing the WSJ…did not want to further ignorantize myself!

  12. Chief Tomahawk says:

    Murdoch didn’t do so well when he bought MySpace.

    “What was once the best paper in America became a mere tool in that pursuit.” O-U-C-H-!-!-!-!

  13. Petey Wheatstraw says:

    Let the greedy hold all of the money, and it will trickle down.

    Deregulate them, because they will behave as upstanding citizens, who would never dream of acting to advance their own self-interests at the cost of everyone else, or causing harm to the economy or environment.

    Lower their taxes, and you will be rewarded with a job and prosperity.

    Let them run all of the social programs, because they are guided by beneficence, wisdom, patriotism, and selflessness.

    Let them run the government, because they obviously have the good judgement and experience to guide us in the right direction.

    If you have any doubts about their ethics, morality, or good intentions, be assured that they have the blessing of God Almighty, himself.

    Rest assured that every belief they hold about history, science, mathematics, or philosophy, is true, because these are not only the most truthful among us, they are scholars who would never stoop to intellectual dishonesty in order to maintain the status quo.

    Believe it all.

  14. beaufou says:

    Everything Murdoch touches turns to ignorance and crass. I hope he doesn’t get away with it in the US.

  15. louiswi says:

    Outstanding post today Barry!!

    I have long said WSJ is the print version of Faux News and I cancelled my decades long subscription right after Murdoch bought it. I just returned from a month in England and can tell you this story is HUGE over there. As they say over there, Murdoch’s ilk make their living in the sewer and as Alexander Haig loved to say, “sucks from the sewer pipe”

  16. Petey Wheatstraw says:

    Greed and lust for power have no end game — they are ends in and of themselves.

  17. RW says:

    The new book by Jeffrey Winters, Oligarchy, provides a more comprehensive framework for understanding the actions of a Murdoch (or a Pete Peterson, the Kochs, etc) than invoking class warfare (although one legitimately can IMO) or the impulses of plain evil (but the shoe does seem to fit sometimes).

    Here’s the cover blurb:

    “For centuries, oligarchs were viewed as empowered by wealth, an idea muddled by elite theory early in the twentieth century. The common thread for oligarchs across history is that wealth defines them, empowers them, and inherently exposes them to threats. The existential motive of all oligarchs is wealth defense. How they respond varies with the threats they confront, including how directly involved they are in supplying the coercion underlying all property claims, and whether they act separately or collectively. These variations yield four types of oligarchy: warring, ruling, sultanistic, and civil. Oligarchy is not displaced by democracy but rather is fused with it. Moreover, the rule of law problem in many societies is a matter of taming oligarchs. Cases studied in this book include the United States, ancient Athens and Rome, Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore, medieval Venice and Siena, mafia commissions in the United States and Italy, feuding Appalachian families, and early chiefs cum oligarchs dating from 2300 BCE.”

    If nothing else this gives me another perspective on Obama’s choice to work through the oligarchs rather than tame them as FDR did: FDR grew up with oligarchs and was a much better historian; he didn’t need a framework such as Winters to know what (and who) the real enemy was.

    Think I’ll risk the wrath or our host and double post this as a response to the weekend reading thread.

  18. formerlawyer says:

    I have posted the link before but to get a sense of the man at least with respect to British Media, see:

  19. MayorQuimby says:

    I was a regular reader before Murdoch murdered the paper. I’ve not bought one issue since he took over.

    Nor will I.

  20. Equityval says:

    “And to me, the great tragedy has been the spoiling of what was once a tremendous asset. We noted the OpEd madness creeping onto the front page and then other stories 18 months ago in WSJ Jumps the Shark.”

    If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then Pinch Sulzberger must have a very big smile on his face. The WSJ is following a path very well and deeply worn by the NYT over the last 5-10 years. The news pages there became deeply politicized about the time of the Iraq invasion and it’s been downhill ever since. Anyone noticed that the A1 dead body count there went essentially to zero once Bush left office?

  21. blackjaquekerouac says:

    actually i’ve found the WSJ not right wing enough for my tastes…that’s why i stopped reading. obviously the family made a fortune by selling to Rupert Murdoch. GOOD FOR THEM! Maybe if they bought it back (at a humongous discount) and insert the appropriate right wingers (Ron Paul as editor comes to mind) I would start reading again. What else is to be expected? I love the “little bitch” comment at the end of this worthless tripe, too–”Murdoch still has tons of money.” Now the author excuses the behavior! How cleansing! Ridiculous. Obviously Chairman and President Murdoch is not alone. The entire media does this–and does it with evil intent. All of them are evil–we hate them–we want them to die. In the meantime perhaps we are realizing our freedom is pretty much non-existent so long as people such as this exist. As was accurately portrayed here “they inform us of NOTHING.” That would be ALL OF THEM of course. INCLUDING THE BIG PICTURE.

  22. Dow says:

    NewsCorp (NWS) is actually a highly profitable company that could easily be cleaved into (profitable) entertainment and (less profitable) news.

    I disagree. Not just News Corp is at risk here. Would you want to infect your brand with the taint of Murdoch? There are only so many advertising dollars out there. Every single advertiser is exposed.

  23. Jim Greeen says:

    To me the hiring of Karl Rove was the clearest sign of things to come.

  24. rootless says:

    The other side is that there is a market for it. Otherwise it wouldn’t work. It’s always a mutual relationship between consumers and producers/publishers. No commercial newspaper or commercial electronic news medium is about journalism and informing the readers first, whether it’s WSJ, NYT, Bloomberg, or any of the other ones. It’s about making money for the owners and investors first, like any other economic enterprise in capitalism. Selling news and (mis-)information, colored pictures, and opinions is just the mean for the end. The targeted market segments differ. Murdoch just targets different market segments than the owners of the NYT. They produce what their targeted consumer segments want to read/hear/see.

    So you can paint some ideal picture what the role of journalism is in a “functional Democracy” and complain that reality doesn’t measure up to this standard. But it’s kind of pointless. The ideal is the ideal, and reality is the reality. Latter doesn’t work in the way of our wishful thinking.

  25. econimonium says:

    Doesn’t anyone long for the days when reporters, you know, reported? Watergate, The Pentagon Papers, breaking stories? No. What we get now is wingnut clap-trap where we’re more worried about some dish of the day and a President (and a grandstanding faux newscorp) than really worrying about what’s going on in this country. I stopped all mainstream media after that fiasco, and the day Murdoch took control of the WSJ I let my years-old subscription expire since I knew what was about to happen. And it did.

    The paper is now, sadly, just batshit crazy as its editorial pages. And the cheeky, pithy reportage is gone. I don’t blame the NYT for being a bastion of liberalism, actually, because it seems less petty and fascist than what any right-wing publication has become. To deliberately change facts and deliberately misinform people is, well, criminal. At least unpatriotic, and that’s what we should be calling these things and these people.

    It seems the House members are more interested in toadying to their (minority) political base as if they were the majority. They aren’t. I’m a Republican and I think I’m the majority who’d like to toss every one of the Tea Party people overboard along with the wingnut Christians like Bachman. So why don’t we and get back to doing what’s BEST for the country instead of ourselves, no matter how hard? That’s what being a statesman is about. Unfortunately we have no one in government, even a president, who fits the description.

  26. SteveC says:

    Rootless, that is the apple and orange argument that conservatives fall back on to defend Murdoch and his media empire. Everyone does it, so whats the difference? No..not everyone does it! Murdoch is particularly adept at creating the news, and then covering his own creation as if it was news. Fox has been found to use footage of crowds from other events, and edited it into newer stories. Who else has editors who make sure every story promotes a particular political ideology, much like the old Soviet controlled media, or the Chinese media censors of today? Murdoch is the most guilty of drifting into Fantasyland. Much like professional wrestling, many of us know its fake, but there’s a segment of the population that swears its all real.

  27. Bob A says:

    It didn’t exactly take a rocket scientist to figure the people who own fox news would bring their radicalism to the wsj but… I agree completely. It’s a pile of cra#.

    A propoganda machine worthy of history’s most notorius dictarships.

  28. Bob A says:

    my spelling is also cra# before i’ve had coffee. after coffee sometimes too :)

  29. GrafSchweik says:


    The one problem with your observations, speaking as a former Republican, is that the NYT is basically liberal only on its Editorial and Op Ed pages. Its political coverage has been equal opportunity crap for years, more than happy to give credence and standing to the wackos, most of them Righties, running around on our national stage that they do not deserve.

    Oh, and I don’t think you’re in the majority of your party. Which is a shame. Sorry. I got out when Raygun took over–the writing was on the wall even then.

    Unfortunately for the societies that hatch them, ideological mass movements tend to play themselves out reductio ad absurdum…

  30. powerpenguin says:

    if not the WSJ, what are the better places to go for business news?

  31. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    Great post.

    I’m not up-to-speed on the corporate structure of News Corp, but it certainly seems that apart from the press issues involved, plus the decline of the ‘brands’, plus the costly loss of BSkyB, this whole mess ought to open up a can of questions about the corporate structures of media ownership. Especially News Corp’s.

    It is certainly refreshing to see BR point out that politics, not news, is really Murdock’s great passion. He gets away with being called a ‘media mogul’ too often, when in fact his real agenda has long appeared to be political.

    The hypocrisy of Murdock, who has used tax havens as an economic advantage over competitors, to pontificate about economics and business to the rest of us truly sticks in my craw.

    Between a corporate ownership that appears designed to maximize his political clout, and a tax practice that is designed to screw every city and town in which any of his rags or broadcasts generate revenues, the whole News Corp outfit is hypocritical to the core. To see them be called out is nothing short of a miracle, and I hope this is only the beginning of the unraveling.

  32. Winston Munn says:

    What deregulation ultimately means is the principle of caveat emptor becomes the primary force for societal protection, which means, of course, there is no societal protection but only each individual watching out for his own self interests.

    Although not on target about the WSJ, Glenn Greenwald has been all over this growing story about reporters metamophasizing into stenographers. The powerful say what they wish without having to worry about fact-checking by reporters or news organizations. We write it down and report it, usually unsourced as an inside anonymous so-and-so. And then we call it news.

    The only avenue left for facts is individual blogs, and then each blog must be judged as to its biases. Caveat Emptor. The good old days when three networks competed with each other to offer up the highest quality facts without editorialism died when John Galt was promoted to the level of demigod.

    Self-concern at its best. Ayn Rand would be proud.

  33. Michael says:

    The actual DATA that Fox News viewers are dumber is not so clear….


    BR: Not dumber. just worse informed than other media consumers. There are many many studies that back up the Stewart claim Fox viewers are the worst informed. The two studies cited by politifact are exceptions.

    Indeed, those studies merely seem to be the a touch kinder versus myriad other academic studies, such as this one:

    University of Maryland study, called “Misinformation and the 2010 Election,” looked at “variations in misinformation by exposure to news sources,” among other things, and specifically newspapers and news magazines (in print and online), network TV news broadcasts, NPR and PBS, Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN. The study found that daily Fox News viewers, regardless of political party, were “significantly” more likely than non-viewers to erroneously believe that:

    Most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)
    Most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)
    The economy is getting worse (26 points)
    Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)
    The stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)
    Their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)
    The auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)
    When TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)
    And that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)

    The study also found that as exposure to Fox News increased, so did the misinformation.

  34. rootless says:


    Rootless, that is the apple and orange argument that conservatives fall back on to defend Murdoch and his media empire.

    If you read a defense of Murdoch and his media empire into my comment, you haven’t really read what I wrote or you haven’t understood it. Instead it seems to have triggered some Pavlovian reflex of enemy identification in you.

    And what do you mean with the “apple and orange argument”? If you want to claim that you can’t compare apple with oranges read this:

  35. zitidiamond says:

    True, the appearance of columns by Fox regulars Karl Rove and Sarah Palin on the editorial pages was off putting, but the real reason I didn’t renew my subscription last year to the WSJ was that under Rupert Murdoch’s direction, news articles ceased to offer anything worth paying for.

  36. TripleB says:

    There was a time when the WSJ was required reading every morning. For all the reasons you’ve cited, I haven’t picked it up in years. Occasionally I’ll visit the website, but usually regret it. Why give them the pageviews?

  37. WaltFrench says:

    Somebody has some ‘splainin to do: along with Mr. Toles, I see no evidence that the standards of the WSJ Editorial page have been compromised in the least. 30 years ago, I avoided buying the paper for them and only when I realized that the news content offset the smell from the darker depths, did I actually start subscribing.

  38. tawm says:

    Amazing the venom everyone has for the WSJ, while giving the NYT a free pass. To demonize Murdoch while not holding the Sulzberger/Ochs clan to the same standard is pure hypocrisy.


    BR: Remind us again which paper is being investigated for hacking into 9/11 victims phones …?

  39. machinehead says:

    ‘The good news is the WSJ can be saved.’

    This is good news? Why?

    I cheer every time another MSM dinosaur dies.

    The demise of the WSJ will be a great day for America. Bring it on!

  40. ancientone says:

    About tawm’s comment implying that “everyone does it” by saying that criticism of WSJ is giving NYT a free pass, what do these people use for brains? Because Fox and its print cohorts give out false statements for political effect, that everyone else does it too? Can a mugger or rapist get off by saying everyone else does what I do? This is really the theatre of the absurd!

  41. Winston Munn says:

    ‘The good news is the WSJ can be saved.’

    Nope. Even Jesus has told Murdoch and the WSJ to go to hell.

  42. theexpertisin says:

    Surprised no one has commented on the Financial Times. I suscribe to both the WSJ and FT, paper and online. I find both interesting reading.They are interesting and informative. Neither are research organs. One is left, one is right. Neither conceal their agendas.

    The New York Times? OK for New Yorkers and the elites. I find it a wasteful litany of progressive angst.

    Fox playing fast and loose with facts? Name me one news media that doesn’t. Since the topic is Murdoch, I’ll add that if his politics were left, this article would not have been penned.

  43. “Regular readers of TBP were warned many years ago that Murdoch was less interested in pursuing journalism, and more interested in his own political agenda. What was once the best paper in America became a mere tool in that pursuit.”


    you’re, too, Nice..that should have been the 1st Paragraph..~

  44. philipat says:

    And if the US does not pursue News Corp under both FCPA and SarbOx, these laws may as well just be repealed because the time and cost of compliance by decent Organisations is very substantial.

  45. Roger Bigod says:

    Rupert Murdoch is my hero. You whiney losers can badmouth him all you want, but he represents self-actualization and will to power. I want to install a statue of him on the town square of Galtsville. Reading about him reminds me of when I was 14 and discovered Rand and Nietzsche in the same month. What an intellectual high point. Ever since, I’ve been full of passionate intensity.

    He’s possibly surpassed by the guys who run the NYT. Murdoch only upset a dead girl’s family. And he got in trouble for it. But the Times can sponsor wars and sit on stories to throw a Presidential election, and no one says a word. We can just marvel at the way they create history. History in their hands is fun, and fungible.

    Too bad Murdoch and the Times management are human, with human flaws. Sometimes you want something more impersonal and generalized. Luckily the universe has provided us with a source of immutable truth and wisdom we can always rely on: the unregulated Free Market. The market’s verdict is clear that one upset family is negligible compared to the gains from peddling their misery. In fact, the family should be grateful that Murdoch gave them a few days of hope, so it’s a win-win.

  46. philipat says:

    Never mind that phone hacking is illegal and that “Upsetting a dead girl’s family” amounts to nothing. More importantly, the hacking of the dead girl’s phone, plus the deleting of voicemail, made the Police believe that she was still alive and delayed the investigation. Bribing Police? Nothing.

    Poor Roger Bigot!!

  47. jdavis says:

    While I like Joe Nocera’s work, I don’t see how the British tabloid scandal has Fox-ified the American newspaper. The Journal was either Fox-ified before this scandal, or it wasn’t. Nothing has changed at the Wall Street Journal in the period of two weeks. And, I think reasonable people can assume that this problem goes deeper than the News Corp. tabloids. I suspect that this disgusting behavior went on at most, if not all, of the British tabloids. Furthermore, the insatiable appetite of the British public for all manner of celebrity scandal created the demand for this kind of journalism. The British were quite fine with hacking and other nefarious practices when it was footballers, rock stars and royals that were being subjected to this kind of thing.

    I think Barry is piling on late here, and should be flagged. The tone and substance of his argument would actually work quite well on Fox News. His assertion regarding Fox viewers is debatable at best, and highly misleading at worst. See here.

    While I’m no fan of Fox News, and have no love for Rupert Murdoch, readers would do well to read Roger Cohen in the New York Times to get a more reasoned picture of the Murdoch story.


    BR: The idea behind “Read it here first” is to show examples of where TBP beat the MSM. I am not sure how referencing work from 2008, ’09, ’10 in 2011 is “piling on late.”

    As to your binary assertion that the “Journal was either Fox-ified before this scandal, or it wasn’t,” you are missing Nocera’s main point: The Journal punted on the NOTW story, which would have been dead center of their usual business coverage. Read the article, it will help you understand the criticism I made.

  48. The Most Incredible Thing Fox News Has Ever Done:
    News of the World as a victim of the hacking problem, rather than as a perpetrator.
    Be sure to see the video:

  49. DeDude says:

    “Fox playing fast and loose with facts? Name me one news media that doesn’t’

    The question is frequency not monopoly. For every 5 times fox does a serious lie or distortion of facts NYT does one – and then it is usually by one of their right wing token reporters (allowed there for “balance”). Fox and the other Murdoch media outlets have an unwritten policy of starting with his conclusion and then distorting their reporting and facts until it seems in support of that (right-wing) conclusion. NYT has a policy against that, but every now and then fail to live up to those journalistic ideals.

  50. zitidiamond says:

    Quite frankly, I don’t see what conservatives hope to gain from framing the bribery of public officials and 4000 violations of privacy as a left/right issue.

  51. From my perch in the Yukon, too many have forgotten the context under which Fox & WSJ reside. The lamestream media have fawned over their first celebrity President for over two years. Clearly the worst to hold the office in our lifetime, Obama is given a free pass at every turn. The first warning sign was his being nominated for the Nobel prior to his inauguration day. Hillary Clinton was only too correct when she mused the USA would be in for four years of on-the-job-training if it chose the wrong the path. Until the airwaves admit the emperor has no clothes … I’m just fine getting the real story from Fox & WSJ.

  52. MikeInSF says:

    ” The lamestream media…

    You have just obviated any need to read anything you write anywhere, ever.

  53. andrewp111 says:

    Oh, please. Obviously Barry is on the side of the Democrats, as is most of the MSM.

    Of course, NWS has a lot to worry about, particularly because Obama controls the DOJ and FBI, and is going to be out for revenge – as he rightfully should be. Politics is a blood sport. The US Government is a much bigger threat to the company than the UK government. NWS is obviously desperate to keep the scandal contained to the UK. I understand a thousand FBI agents are being assigned to investigate every aspect of NWS with the goal of bringing RICO charges against the holding company. The racketeering laws allow a Federal Judge to order the forfeiture of the entire company even before any trials or convictions, since forfeiture is based on “preponderance of evidence”.

  54. zitidiamond says:

    “Barry is on the side of the Democrats, as is most of the MSM”

    Let’s see. Murdoch who owns 20th Century Fox, the Wall Street Journal, and Fox TV is not part of the main stream media, but Barry, who writes a blog called The Big Picture, is!