5 ms·

Ever since News Corp. bought the WSJ in 2007, the nutjob conservatism of its Op-Ed page has permeated and corrupted its formerly excellent and fairly objective

by vonnik 11y ago

Ever since News Corp. bought the WSJ in 2007, the nutjob conservatism of its Op-Ed page has permeated and corrupted its formerly excellent and fairly objective news reporting. A lot of the best journalists have left, and the rest know which drummer they march to. One aspect of US conservative thought today is nationalist hostility toward China (cf. Trump), and schadenfreude over anything that takes China down a notch. Unfortunately, WSJ reporters facing those incentives will have a harder time being reality-based. They seek instead to flatter their readers' sensibilities and obey their editors' orders. This leads to sloppy arguments. Take this line, for example: > By 2050, the working-age population will decline by 212 million, estimates the United Nations—> roughly as many people as live in Brazil, the world’s fifth most-populous nation. I doubt that the UN report takes into account Beijing's decision, published three weeks ago, to transform its one-child policy into a two-child policy, which is just the latest in a series of moves intended to shift its demographic outlook. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/29/asia/china-one-child-policy/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/29/asia/china-one-child-policy/ China's rising wages are the inevitable, logical result of China getting richer; i.e. they are a sign of China's success in modernizing itself.

refurb 11y ago
Take this line, for example: That's your evidence that WSJ is run by a bunch of conservative shills? Not very convincing!
- vonnik 11y ago
  > That's your evidence that WSJ is run by a bunch of conservative shills? No, that's my evidence that the article contained sloppy reporting which conveniently aligns with the WSJ's anti-China bias. There is plenty of other evidence that the Journal is run by a bunch of conservative shills. Climate Science Bias at the WSJ http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/27/remarkable-editorial-bias-on-climate-science-at-the-wall-street-journal/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/27/remarkabl... One example of that bias http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400 http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405274870393940457... Under Murdoch, Tilting Rightward at the Journal http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/business/media/14carr.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/business/media/14carr.html "Does Ownership Matter? The case of Rupert Murdoch's purchase of the Wall Street Journal" http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17512786.2014.882063#.VlQuht-rRE5 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17512786.2014.882... And for more examples, see here: http://mediamatters.org/tags/the-wall-street-journal http://mediamatters.org/tags/the-wall-street-journal
blisterpeanuts 11y ago
Could you give some examples of the journalists who have left? I've subscribed on and off to the Journal since the late 80s, and pretty much continuously to the online version since '99, and I have not detected a decline in quality. The paper has certainly changed over the years, and seems less stuffy and stodgy than it once was, reflecting the generational change in the readership and the staff. It's about as conservative as it always was, though. Regarding the two child announcement, the article pointed out that it was unlikely to affect the population decline because not that many Chinese want more than one child, and in any event it would take at least 16 years for the policy to have an effect. I'm not convinced that people want just one child, however. It seems likely that many couples who already have a girl will want to try for a boy.
- vonnik 11y ago
  > Could you give some examples of the journalists who have left? There have been successive waves of departures, many of whom have left for the WSJ's rivals in financial news: Reuters and Bloomberg. I was a journalist for years, and this exodus is well known in the industry. For example, Laurie Hayes, deputy managing editor at the WSJ, left for Bloomberg in 2008. The mass departures of WSJ staff is credited with transforming Bloomberg internally. Many more names are cited here: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/04/25/exodus-former-wsj-staffers-speak-out-against-mu/179020 http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/04/25/exodus-former-wsj-st... http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/more-wsj-veterans-land-at-bloomberg/ http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/more-wsj-ve... > in any event it would take at least 16 years for the policy to have an effect I agree that it will take time for the policy to take effect, but the article made a lot of predictions beyond that time horizon, which I believe are overly, willfully pessimistic.
  - blisterpeanuts 11y ago
    Thanks for those links; that Media Matters article in particular was quite informative. Sounds like there really has been a big turnover at the Journal; a shame. I wonder, though, how much of the old Journal's approach would work in this one-screen sound bite era that we live in?

by vonnik 11y ago

refurb 11y ago

Take this line, for example: That's your evidence that WSJ is run by a bunch of conservative shills? Not very convincing!

vonnik 11y ago
> That's your evidence that WSJ is run by a bunch of conservative shills? No, that's my evidence that the article contained sloppy reporting which conveniently aligns with the WSJ's anti-China bias. There is plenty of other evidence that the Journal is run by a bunch of conservative shills. Climate Science Bias at the WSJ http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/27/remarkable-editorial-bias-on-climate-science-at-the-wall-street-journal/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/27/remarkabl... One example of that bias http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400 http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405274870393940457... Under Murdoch, Tilting Rightward at the Journal http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/business/media/14carr.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/business/media/14carr.html "Does Ownership Matter? The case of Rupert Murdoch's purchase of the Wall Street Journal" http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17512786.2014.882063#.VlQuht-rRE5 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17512786.2014.882... And for more examples, see here: http://mediamatters.org/tags/the-wall-street-journal http://mediamatters.org/tags/the-wall-street-journal

blisterpeanuts 11y ago

Could you give some examples of the journalists who have left? I've subscribed on and off to the Journal since the late 80s, and pretty much continuously to the online version since '99, and I have not detected a decline in quality. The paper has certainly changed over the years, and seems less stuffy and stodgy than it once was, reflecting the generational change in the readership and the staff. It's about as conservative as it always was, though. Regarding the two child announcement, the article pointed out that it was unlikely to affect the population decline because not that many Chinese want more than one child, and in any event it would take at least 16 years for the policy to have an effect. I'm not convinced that people want just one child, however. It seems likely that many couples who already have a girl will want to try for a boy.

vonnik 11y ago
> Could you give some examples of the journalists who have left? There have been successive waves of departures, many of whom have left for the WSJ's rivals in financial news: Reuters and Bloomberg. I was a journalist for years, and this exodus is well known in the industry. For example, Laurie Hayes, deputy managing editor at the WSJ, left for Bloomberg in 2008. The mass departures of WSJ staff is credited with transforming Bloomberg internally. Many more names are cited here: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/04/25/exodus-former-wsj-staffers-speak-out-against-mu/179020 http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/04/25/exodus-former-wsj-st... http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/more-wsj-veterans-land-at-bloomberg/ http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/more-wsj-ve... > in any event it would take at least 16 years for the policy to have an effect I agree that it will take time for the policy to take effect, but the article made a lot of predictions beyond that time horizon, which I believe are overly, willfully pessimistic.
- blisterpeanuts 11y ago
  Thanks for those links; that Media Matters article in particular was quite informative. Sounds like there really has been a big turnover at the Journal; a shame. I wonder, though, how much of the old Journal's approach would work in this one-screen sound bite era that we live in?