Murdoch & the WSJ Editorial Page
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:
Tom Toles via Yahoo!
Friday, July 20, 2007 | 03:30 PM | Permalink
| Comments (31)
| TrackBack (0)
add to de.li.cious | 
digg this! | 
add to technorati | 
email this post
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c52a953ef00e0099597788833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Murdoch & the WSJ Editorial Page:
Comments
I agree with you Barry, the WSJ op-ed page is somewhat unbalanced, same as Fox news.
Posted by: Bucky Katt | Jul 20, 2007 3:39:33 PM
the comment in the bottom right corner is the real joke.......
Ciao
MS
Posted by: michael schumacher | Jul 20, 2007 4:03:25 PM
If you want rabid ideologues - try the investors business daily ... they make WSJ look liberal by comparison
Posted by: yoshi | Jul 20, 2007 4:10:22 PM
yoshi- what does 'liberal' mean to you?
I've rarely seen a more 'rabid' political bunch than on this blog.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. | Jul 20, 2007 4:14:48 PM
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.
Posted by: Chris | Jul 20, 2007 4:43:48 PM
Thank God for the rational thinkers on the NYT's editorial pages: Krugman, Dowd, Rich.
Posted by: Norman | Jul 20, 2007 4:57:08 PM
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.
Posted by: BayAreaGuy | Jul 20, 2007 5:02:32 PM
Off topic, but BR the Anniversary Sale began at Nordstrom's today. The women's shoe section was a zoo.
Posted by: Chief Tomahawk | Jul 20, 2007 5:02:54 PM
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.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. | Jul 20, 2007 5:08:16 PM
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.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. | Jul 20, 2007 5:08:54 PM
No idea how this posted twice. My apologies.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. | Jul 20, 2007 5:10:07 PM
I agree as well but I can't help but ad the the cartoon could just as well be describing Larry Kudlow's show...
Posted by: Bob A | Jul 20, 2007 5:30:49 PM
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.
Posted by: OkieLawyer | Jul 20, 2007 5:37:01 PM
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.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. | Jul 20, 2007 6:12:38 PM
The most reactionary people I know are self identified progressives.
Posted by: Tia | Jul 20, 2007 7:10:13 PM
Jesus H people its just a cartoon in the WSJ.
Posted by: bonghiteric | Jul 20, 2007 7:19:22 PM
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.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. | Jul 20, 2007 7:46:39 PM
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.
Posted by: RW | Jul 20, 2007 8:09:46 PM
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...
Posted by: The Financial Philosopher | Jul 20, 2007 8:44:17 PM
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.
Posted by: donna | Jul 20, 2007 8:49:07 PM
Who labeled the op/ed page of the WSJ as run by 'rabid ideologues' and who agrees with that asessment? The 'reactionaries'?
Posted by: Tom C.,Stamford,Ct. | Jul 20, 2007 9:54:20 PM
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.
Posted by: fred | Jul 20, 2007 10:07:12 PM
good point tom c
Posted by: FosterPhinney | Jul 20, 2007 11:19:03 PM
The Fox News brand damage to the WSJ is going to be enormous. What a shame.
Posted by: rebound | Jul 21, 2007 3:21:32 AM
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?
Posted by: muckdog | Jul 21, 2007 3:55:10 AM
