3 ms·
Nonsense. You think because WSJ is pro-business, they would "normally defend a duopoly kind of thing"? It is possible to be generally pro-business while also c
by mcrad 9y ago
Nonsense. You think because WSJ is pro-business, they would "normally defend a duopoly kind of thing"?
It is possible to be generally pro-business while also critizing kinda-deceptive business models with kinda-unchecked power.
- padseeker 9y agoIf they really had any principle they would take a similar stance against the Sinclair/Tribune merger. But they won't. Because Sinclair is a conservative new outlet. It has somewhat similar opinion on politics that the WSJ has. It has said nothing and most likely favors the Sinclair merger. It opposes Facebook/Google duopoly. Why the inconsistency? Because the WSJ sees the F/G duopoly supporting political opinions it does not like. I'm not really asking, the answer is obvious. It's because the WSJ editorial section actually has no real principle or integrity on this issue.
- mcrad 9y agoWell perhaps they support the propping up of old media because, on average, there is more integrity than in so-called new media, regardless of what you consider a left/right argument. Like perhaps bailing out the banks in 08 was more about stability than some evil leftist plan to quasi-socialize the core function of our economy.