7 comments on “Err, no

  1. WSJ is an anagram of SJW.

    Ain’t that the truth. Cancelled my subscription about 2 years ago when I realized it’s editorial page could get printed in the NYT and nobody would know the difference.

  2. Ah, the problem of the educated. They enjoy showing they’re educated. But proving that they’re not.

  3. Anecdotally I’ve been told that the staff (not the editorial page) of the WSJ leans most D of any major paper in the US as measured by campaign donations. That could just be a function of New York but still.

  4. I think more a function of elite East Coast newspapers hiring only from elite East Coast colleges. Columbia doesn’t turn out dispassionate journalists… It turns out socialist agitators and Democratic Party operatives (but I repeat myself).

  5. One of my pet peeves about the WSJ. The editors are asleep at the switch. Twenty years ago it would have been unthinkable to see these kinds of howlers in the paper, but the quality has gone down dramatically. And the newspages are as biased in their reporting as anything else produced by the mainstream media blob, no doubt a reflection of the fact that they hire Columbia graduates rather than actual reporters. Or even people who have a passing familiarity with the subjects on which they are reporting. Like, you know, Wall Street, the stock market, capitalism, free markets, etc.

    But this is nothing unusual. The Financial Times, the Economist, Bloomberg/Businessweek, and on and on, are basically interchangeable purveyors of leftist agitprop.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.