Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

WSJ QUESTION

For those that read this paper, do you see it favoring Dems , Reps, or evenly divided ?
Thanks , Derf

Comments

  • You have to be kidding, right? The editorial and management-controlled pages are 295% far-far right radical Republican.

    The value of the WSJ is that it's news and financial reporting is still neutral, without much underlying political slant at all. Very decent reporters.
  • Old_Joe I've been out of touch with WSJ for over 4 months. Today picked it up at library & seemed to shout what you're saying. At least one point of view pointed to Dems as being the main cause of high & higher gas prices !! With so much oil & gas in the ground why high priced gas ?
    Thanks, Derf
  • edited March 12
    Hi Derf, I’m a long time reader. Two-part answer. Need to separate the opinion section from the news reporting.

    The WSJ‘s editorial board is notoriously conservative - to the point I hardly ever read their editorials. That said, they appear to support a more moderate element of the R party than that which has dominated it recently. And they have taken Trump to task on various transgressions a number of times. The Journal’s much broader “Opinion” section also favors contributors with right leaning views - though some centrist and left wing thinking is occasionally included.

    I have no problem with their news coverage. Top notch journalists with the resources to do their job and having plenty of journalistic integrity. A delight to read! Sure, sometimes a bit of bias may creep in; but I find the Journal more objective in its news reporting than the left leaning WP.
  • edited March 12
    Well Derf, it really hasn't changed in four months. Or four years. Or, probably, four decades.

    And PLEASE- despite what @hank suggested, let's not all start putting everything in CAPS to see who can shout the loudest around here. He, of all people, should know better- maybe he was only kidding, I hope.
  • @hank- I'd surely agree on your comparison of the WSJ journalistic reporting to that of the Washington Post. The WSJ is one of the last sources of in-depth news coverage, at least here in the US.
  • edited March 12
    Old_Joe said:

    And PLEASE- despite what @hank suggested, let's not all start putting everything in CAPS to see who can shout the loudest around here. He, of all people, should know better- maybe he was only kidding, I hope.

    BUT HE SAID HE WANTED THE POST TO BE NOTICED !

    :)
  • As a former teacher you know damned well that some people (like me, for instance) will take things literally. Please report to the principal's office.:)
  • edited March 13
    OJ - You’re one sharp dude. You say you never attended college which is hard to believe. Yet you can run circles around many I know who attended, graduated and hold degrees.

    Re - “people (like me, for instance)

    Bull**** !
  • edited March 12
    Allow me to clarify a bit... in my case the "taking literally" would be with full understanding of the circumstances and a deliberate effort to discomfit and possible screw up the "system" under the guise of a "misunderstanding". As in: "Oh, I didn't realize that you were kidding!" :)

    No, no college other than about six months at SF City. All of my trouble-making abilities were acquired independently.
  • For many years I subscribed to the WSJ at a really low price for academics. I reasoned that if I read it and the NYTimes I’d be able to know what the “other side” is thinking. Two things pushed me to cancel the WSJ: the price almost doubled and way more editorial commentary was making its way into the news articles. I noticed the changes in news coverage about the time Trump came on the scene. It seemed that news stories frequently contained expressions such as “left-leaning” to describe anyone who was not a Republican and I also found that the presentation of political news bore overt signs of partisanship. In the Journal’s well-regarded investigative articles, I found no such bias. The pieces on Elizabeth Holmes, for instance, were exemplary.

    My local NPR station offered a digital subscription to WaPo as a reward for a donation. I signed up and I just renewed it having found a really good newspaper, one with broad coverage and a decent range of opinion pieces. Nothing will duplicate the “Gray Lady,” but there is competition.
  • yes, from some years ago, I remember that Bret Stevens, for one, is notoriously kookoo nuts far-Right crazy.
  • stephens has been at the times for some time, and is none of those things
  • stephens has been at the times for some time, and is none of those things

    I suppose he's not a Trumpster-type?
  • Not remotely

    Read up
Sign In or Register to comment.