New York Times worries about Wall Street Journal Objectivity

[mountainclmbr]

NYT worried about Wall Street Journal's objectivity after the Journal is bought by Rupert Murdoch.

That's pretty funny!


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/opinion/02thu2.html

All of us who care about journalism will be watching for any sign that news coverage at The Wall Street Journal is being slanted to curry political or economic favor.

[Manedwolf]

[Brad Johnson]

Sometimes you just have to shake your head and laugh.

Brad

[The Rabbi]

The WSJ just had an editorial (yesterday I think) on this.
They suggested that these are crocodile tears.  After all, objective, unbiased reporting is what makes the WSJ a valuable commodity.  Get rid of that and the value ceases.  It is why people buy and read the Journal as opposed to other papers, like the NYT.
The paper business is highly competitive in case no one's noticed recently.

[Mannlicher]

its a laugh riot.  The NYT, which  has zero journalistic integrity, has the chutzpah to talk about the POSSIBILITY of something happening at the WSJ.  Amazing
At least we can say that the NYT has objectivity.  Their object is to destroy America, and further the cause of socialists world wide.

[Iain]

Well, an interesting litmus test will be editorials on ______ _______ considering Murdoch has changed his own position on that one and the WSJ has a reputation for taking a certain position.

[mountainclmbr]

Iain, while we disagree about ___________ _________, I do agree with you that it will be interesting to watch. You have to admit that the NYT also has a strong position that they support too.

[Perd Hapley]

Iain, you're hilarious.   

[DustinD]

Ok somebody help me out. What is _________ ___________ ?

[mountainclmbr]

The words _________________ ______________ are polite society code for global warming. Algore invented the internet too, so everyone should take GW or _ _ (acronym for ____________ ____________) on faith (as in religion). To do otherwise would be an "inconvenient denial" resulting in the "down elevator" ticket upon one's demise. If you mention _ _ in a thread title it just results in pages and pages of opposing theories that have come to resemble holy wars. It is better to use ______ _____ instead of mentioning those horrible words. It is for the chilrenz (carbon taxes and all).

[Vile Nylons]

That's like little children playing with their secret decoder rings.

Only the "smart" people like Carbon Credits gAlore will understand, while the rest of us knuckle draggers are going to stand around saying "gee, what do those two lines mean, duh"  ? 

[Iain]

It's just too much of a red rag. Never discuss sex, politics, religion and ______ _______

I was trying to be careful about being interpreted as suggesting that I hope Murdoch has an influence on WSJ editorial opinion on this particular issue, because I don't.

[SomeKid]

 

Next Jesse Jackson will lecture Bill Clinton on morals..