Posted on 08/24/2017 7:50:51 AM PDT by yoe
Murdoch destroyed the WSJ when he bought it, turning it into his personal propaganda organ, exactly like Bezos did with WaPo.
They’ve paywalled themselves into irrelevance on the net, and now are probably surviving only because of corporate subscriptions.
We stopped our subscription almost 8 years ago when Peggy Noonan kept adulating Barack Obama. We had read and subscribed to the WSJ since 1980.
I didn’t need President Trump to tell me about anti-Trump globalism but thanks for insulting my intelligence and the intelligence of many other people here on FR.
Another WSJ and NYT drop-out here. Years ago, and for the same political slant reasons. I kept The Sunday Times just for the crossword, but finally dropped that, too.
Do these papers have a clue? Maybe the WSJ editor is beginning to get it, but why so long?
Now I just get the Newark Star Ledger -— but ONLY for their crosswords.(and a reason for that) One look at their op-ed page and the political cartoon is enough to drop this paper, too.
I stopped my subscription about 10 years ago when they dropped the conservative angle plus put colored photos rather than the black sketches as they had for years.
I wrote a note to them saying why I cancelled and even had a fellow call me to ask why. I said it used to be a man’s man paper and now had girly pictures and clothing ads in color like any old USA today paper and it was not to MY liking any more. He had the nerve to say... “But you are a woman!” I politely said if I wanted liberal opinions and girly ads I’d buy elsewhere. I had subscribed for at least 25 years. Geesh.
Good reply. I agree. I do not always agree with the OpEds but they are usually well reasoned and based in conservative to libertarian principles. The news section was always sorta bland in that is was very fact based. But that changed as far back as 15 years ago.
I think the WSJ deliberately tried to broaden the audience with opinionated fact pieces while keeping the core happy with the OpEds. Now they have seen what happens anytime you let libs get their nose into the tent.
I enjoy the WSJ, but I’ve noticed a definite slant to the reporting lately, too. I’m glad the editor took this on.
The editorials and analyses or opinion pieces are good; even if you don’t agree with them, they’re well reasoned and worth reading (because we are NOT like the left, which doesn’t even let itself be exposed to an opinion that might not be 100% PC).
Now, Peggy Noonan’s column, on the other hand...I think she’s way past her sell-by date. She has a simultaneously antagonistic and condescending attitude towards what she think Trump represents and anybody who voted for him - I assume she did not - and she doesn’t seem to realize that the one perfect president, Ronald Reagan, is dead and he’s not coming back.
Tad touchy today aren’t we?
I said people, I didn’t say Freepers. I am talking about ordinary Americans that previously were not aware of globalism but now are thanks to Trump. I could have been more explicit in who I was referring to, but I was assuming (always a mistake) that seasoned Freepers would know my inference.
Sheesh.
The HuffPo demonstrates the problem when it immediately suggests that the criticism was motivated by Trump’s personal friendship with Rupert Murdoch, rather than the fact that it’s painfully, obviously true.
“Tad touchy today aren’t we?”
I am. My apologies.
Fire Paul Gigot.
The wsj editorial page is now merely a mouthpiece of the establishment uniparty.
Nothing else.
Gone are the days (1980's) of getting great political analysis from the WSJ editorial pages and National Review.
Show me a consistent contributor or policy line that rattles Mitch McTurtle.
Exactly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.