Wall Street Journal

The Wall Street Journal is an esteemed, respected newspaper (ha!) owned by the Dow Jones Corporation, which focuses on business and financial market news. The tone is dry and respectful, and they don't have a comics page (possibly because the op-eds are enough of a joke already).

You gotta spin it to win it
Media
Stop the presses!
We want pictures
of Spider-Man!
  • Journalism
  • Newspapers
  • All articles
Extra! Extra!
  • WIGO World
v - t - e
“”If I were to create a list of questions to ask potential managers of my money, one of them would be: “Do you read the WSJ OpEds?” If the answer were yes, I would not walk but run in the opposite direction.
—Barry Ritholtz[1]

Anyone interested in economics has pretty much given up on WSJ. They used to have a decent mix of free and paid content, but now even the real-time economics blog is paid.

Decline

Since Rupert Murdoch's purchase of the WSJ in 2007, however, many to the left of wingnut have noticed its declining editorial standards:

The pandering has (predictably) made the comments section hilariously wingnutty and should be avoided at all costs.

Actually, it's about ethics in trolling minorities

When the paper accused PewDiePie of promoting or normalizing Nazi rhetoric, they received backlash from much of the YouTube community. This included reactionaries longing for a comeback of Gamergate and also dickholes like misogynist Maddox, Libertarian Phillip de Franco, and alt-right pandering Ethan Klein. PewDiePie lost his Disney sponsorship (and his mind) as a result.

gollark: > iPhone
gollark: The fancier ones just have better panels with better color or resolution or brightness or refresh rate and whatever else.
gollark: I mean, in smartphones.
gollark: Every OLED screen in phones is in fact AMOLED.
gollark: I mean, nobody was putting PMOLED displays in phones.

See also

Notes
  1. Having a noted medical non-expert (in fact, a noted "expert" at promoting medical woo) like Suzanne Somers write (badly) about the economics of the Affordable Care Act was part of a blatant appeal to celebrity the WSJ was trying in the early-mid 2010s, in a clear sign of a decline in its rigor. Around this time period, the WSJ drafted many famous entertainers (such as Pat SajakFile:Wikipedia's W.svg and Morgan FairchildFile:Wikipedia's W.svg among others) to write on financial and political topics that they were way out of their depth on. Bizarrely, this was often done under the special report title "The Experts"[2]

References
  1. Art Laffer: Make Up Your Own Facts Here, Barry Ritholtz
  2. "A Celebrity Journal fiasco: Quack-loving Suzanne Somers, WSJ "expert" on health care by Ryan Chittum, Columbia Journalism Review, 2013 October 29
  3. Wall Street Journal Doubles Down on Global Warming Denial, Slate
  4. WSJ: Selectively pro-science, ThinkProgress
  5. Real Climate: WSJ vs. the Consensus of the Scientific Community, Lindzen: Point-by-point, WSJ Editorial Board: Head Still Buried in Sand, Global warming delusions at the WSJ, etc.
This article is issued from Rationalwiki. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.