> 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

> 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