Is the WSJ still relevant?

or Register to post new content in the forum

17 RepliesJump to last post

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Mar 10, 2010 3:17 pm

I've noticed a significant increase in political posturing in the WSJ since News Corp took over. But this latest headline with the crazy lady in PA has me really wondering if I should cancel my subscription.

I subscribe for a concise summary of financial news. The fact that they used the front cover just to show pics of some crazy lady in PA makes me wonder if they are still a financial newspaper. The story wasn't even newsworthy in my local paper (page 5). How it makes headlines on the WSJ is questionable.

It is obvious that News Corp has a political adgenda (the reason the sale of the WSJ almost did not go through). And, of course, they have an audience. But, I subscribe to the wsj for financial news - not this fluff.

I only care about making money. I think I might cancel my subscription.

Mar 10, 2010 10:31 pm

Lawrence, reading your posts I really think you are a shill.  Go back to democratic underground or dailycos or whatever rock you crawled out from under.

Mar 11, 2010 9:19 am

A "shill"? I think you just aren't following my point.

I don't want political spin in my financial newspaper. I do not wish to read any financial paper that promotes any political adgenda. It's strictly business. An 8" x 10" color photo of some nut-case in PA on the front page has nothing to do with business. Sure, it probably got an hour-long special on Fox News and all the other networks (and I'm fine with that); but it does not belong in the WSJ.

I also don't like how, after News Corp took over, their stories started to go into what the people eat for lunch, where they go to the gym, or where they get their hair done. I've been disappointed for a long time. I was wondering if others felt the same. 

I want the editors to only be concerned with factors that
effect our economy - and I want them to present all views in an argument. When editors try to push a political adgenda
through a financial paper, the news is less trustworthy. I'm losing trust in the WSJ.

Mar 11, 2010 2:08 pm

[quote=Lawrence]

I've noticed a significant increase in political posturing in the WSJ since News Corp took over.

[/quote]

Either you're rather new to the WSJ or you're imagining things. The WSJ has always had a free market bent, as you would expect, to it.

[quote=Lawrence]

I only care about making money. I think I might cancel my subscription. [/quote]

Go ahead, cancel. You won't like IBD either. In fact, I doubt there's much to do with serious market news you'll enjoy. In fact, there may be something to joelv72's advice.

Mar 11, 2010 10:53 pm

Yeah, I gree that IBD isn't much better. I do like business week, but I have to wait till the weekend to get anything. too long.

Mar 11, 2010 11:36 pm

The view that the President is anti-business is, at least presently, pretty much univeral in the investment world. You're unlikely to find any paper that caters to investment professionals that doesn't express hostility to the President's policies. The views expressed by the WSJ's editorial staff are center-right compared to IBD.

Business Week has similarly taken a critical tone of the President, but considerably more amicable, as the editorial staff has been historically been supportive of Obama. Also it's not daily, so it's not really a true investment publication - it's really more of a topical publication on business subjects.

Mar 12, 2010 9:03 pm

I really do not expect News Corp to keep the WSJ neutral forever, so maybe I'm just seeing things.

Mar 13, 2010 12:15 am

No, I don't think you're seeing things - the Journal's editorial policy is anti-Administration. But, I don't think this has as much to do with Murdoch as recent events. Hostility to a sitting president would have been seen as completely unacceptable 10 years ago, but the current leadership in Congress' approach and the President's vilification rhetoric have pretty much isolated business from Washington and forced Business publications to take sides. In fact, based on my analysis, the entire business establishment has become aligned against the administration.

The Democratic party took a very left turn after Iraq and pretty much went wild in this recent recession. The senior congressional leadership is largely composed of people that got handed the keys by W when Iraq hit it's third year. These ancient liberals would never have come to power had it not been for an historical accident.

Other than Obama, the Democrats really don't have  a nationally popular leadership - what dominates policy and power in government today are a series of far left, narrow liberal politicians who have sat for decades in safe seats and whom are hopelessly out of touch with the American people - and don't care to be connected to what they largely see as ignorant masses. They have  alienated their friends on Wall Street because of their schitzophrenic approach to financial reform, driven a wedge between themselves and Silicon Valley with their forgotten promises on taxes, and lost their relationship with service businesses like hotels through union pandering.

The Democrats pretty much destroyed any credibility with the private sector by how they behaved bringing the managed care companies in line with Obamacare. The Democratic leadership in congress pretty much concluded that they were the anti-business party in the 4th quarter of last year and stopped looking back.

Good luck in the wake of Citzens United, Nancy, Harry and Steny. You earned it.

Mar 16, 2010 5:01 pm

Great post SFBroker.

I agree.

Mar 16, 2010 5:49 pm

Well SF, I agree that there is little leadership in the Democratic party(with the exception of Obama). What worries me is how much less leadership exists in the republican party. They have become reactionary losers. They only talk about what they don't like. They lost all credibility under the dickless cheney regime and haven't the guts or the brains to reinvent themselves. The fact that sara the slut speaks to standing room only shows how far we've fallen as a society. Rush fatass and glen bicker are forced into complying with the know-nothing demands of their audience by eight figure incomes. I've been republican since '73. I can't stand the party. I'm waiting for some leadership from somewhere and wondering how to throw the whole crowd out and start from scratch. But with staggered senate elections I don't think that will happen.

Mar 17, 2010 10:00 pm

I don't necessarily mind the WSJ having a point of view and slanting their reporting based upon that view. All newspapers do that. The NY Times does it as well. They are still relelvant.

But the WSJ, and i think this is what Lawrence is referring to, is clearly exhibiting the stamp of Murdochs organization. Sensationalism. if you live in NY, pick up the NY Post, That was a great paper, until he took it over and took it to the level of the National Enquirer. I cant look at it any more. Its a shame because they always had great sports section.

I am not saying the WSJ is at that level - yet. I'm just saying that they've clearly taken a step in the wrong direction and it smells like the direction of News Corp stamp. Having a picture of a crazy lady from PA on the front page (i didnt see that) is a symptom of that.

Mar 18, 2010 1:19 pm

Exactly! I was going to mention the NY Post, but I figured most people here don't get the Post.

The PA lady got about 50% of the top half of the front page (what you see when you walk by the news stand). It just didn't make sense.

Mar 19, 2010 12:33 am

[quote=navet]

What worries me is how much less leadership exists in the republican party. They have become reactionary losers. They only talk about what they don't like.....They lost all credibility under the dickless cheney regime and haven't the guts or the brains to reinvent themselves.

[/quote]

Yeah, well, I'm actually a Democrat (a very weak one), but I don't think that I see the Republicans as "leaderless", I think those leaders are people like Rudy G, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin. Whether you or I find them charismatic is another matter, but they fill auditoriums with rich and poor, young and old, --- whites.

I would call the Bush II Dynasty a lot of things (bellicose, vicious, arrogant), but "dickless" wouldn't be one of them. They certainly made a point about American military and economic dominance with Operation: Piss Off the Planet. Not one sanction, or even consequence for the US by any other power. I guess they desperately need us to continue buying Braun coffeemakers and Toyotas and crappy poisonous Chinese toys.

Can't say that Obama's strategy of apologize profusely and continue with the same imperial policies as my predecessor seems to work very well either. Maybe the answer is to start the move to energy independence instead of wasting our money, lives and credibility fighting over these s***holes because we can't show any moderation in our consuption of oil. (At least the President has the right focus on nuclear and green energy.)

[quote=navet]

The fact that sara the slut speaks to standing room only shows how far we've fallen as a society. 

[/quote]

Mrs. Palin may be insensitive to the plight of the poor, be prone to crazy exaggerations, be arrogant, and somewhat ignorant, but I've never heard about her engaging in sexual impropriety. I may not agree with her politically, and I may think she pressured her daughter to have a baby she didn't want, but calling her a "slut" because you don't agree with her poltical views? You're not elevating the society by calling her that.

[quote=navet]

I've been republican since '73. I can't stand the party.

[/quote]

You joined the Republican party in the year that Nixon resigned? You're an odd bird.

[quote=navet]

I'm waiting for some leadership from somewhere and wondering how to throw the whole crowd out and start from scratch. But with staggered senate elections I don't think that will happen.

[/quote]

Why is everyone looking for someone else to guide them? Why can't we simply seek out competent administrators what will pay attention to the public will. Why does there always need to be some great public endeavor or war for people to feel fullfilled?

Mar 19, 2010 1:21 am

[quote=navet]I'm waiting for some leadership from somewhere and wondering how to throw the whole crowd out and start from scratch.[/quote]

If you wait for leadership, you will be left behind. Leadership is not something you buy, borrow nor beg for. Leadership begins in your home and spreads outwards. You either accept the leaders that stand up or stand up yourself.

 

p.s. admirable response SF

Mar 19, 2010 9:10 am

[quote=san fran broker]

[quote=navet]

I've been republican since '73. I can't stand the party.

[/quote]

You joined the Republican party in the year that Nixon resigned? You're an odd bird.

[/quote]

Nice catch!

Maybe he joined because he saw the limitless potential of Gerald Ford!!!

Mar 20, 2010 10:18 am

[quote=Lawrence]

[quote=san fran broker]

[quote=navet]

I've been republican since '73. I can't stand the party.

[/quote]

You joined the Republican party in the year that Nixon resigned? You're an odd bird.

[/quote]

Nice catch!

Maybe he joined because he saw the limitless potential of Gerald Ford!!!

[/quote]

I graduated from high school in '73 and became a republican to PO my parents.

May 4, 2010 6:07 pm

bump