5 ms·

>This is pure bullshit, and bullshit journalism. It's the "Wall Street Journal", a Murdoch business publication that approves of every business as long as it i

by sqdbps 9y ago

>This is pure bullshit, and bullshit journalism. It's the "Wall Street Journal", a Murdoch business publication that approves of every business as long as it isn't Google.

bllguo 9y ago
Recently my impression of the WSJ is incredibly poor. Just BS article after BS article. To me the bias has never been more obvious. Though I only see their content on aggregators like HN, so perhaps that plays a part.
dsacco 9y ago
> It's the "Wall Street Journal", a Murdoch business publication that approves of every business as long as it isn't Google. Please don't bring politics into this. If you have a substantive criticism about the WSJ's article, make that criticism. The one you've made is ideological and unpersuasive.
- sqdbps 9y ago
  Political? Rupert Murdoch's distain for Google is well documented, and he isn't shy about siccing his papers on them: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/mar/26/battle-rupert-murdoch-google-advertising-e-commerce-fake-news-david-clementi-bbc https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/mar/26/battle-rupert-...
- jacksmith21006 9y ago
  Is this honestly a question? Murdoch disdain for Google is well known.
  - dsacco 9y ago
    Rupert Murdoch can have well documented dislike for Google without his dislike intrinsically kneecapping the Wall Street Journal’s journalistic integrity. The comment I replied to criticizes the article we’re discussing categorically by origin, instead of specifically on merits. Murdoch’s agenda can be a thesis statement for why the WSJ has poor journalistic integrity with respect to Google, but it doesn't demonstrate that failing on its own, nor is merely calling out that someone in a position of power has an agenda a well-reasoned thesis. Basically, it’s not contributing anything more interesting to the discussion, and is just going to attract other comments or upvotes that agree. That’s not insightful discussion, it’s just ingroup commiseration.
    - namdnay 9y ago
      In this case, Murdoch has a track record of using his media empire to push his business and political views, so it's really quite appropriate.
    - Pxtl 9y ago
      Murdoch also has a well known taste for owning news sources that have no journalistic integrity.
    - peoplewindow 9y ago
      Appreciate the demand for precision, but you won't get more than anecdotes in this case. I used to work for Google and I remember the 180 degree turn in WSJ's output after Murdoch gave a speech in which he announced Google News was killing journalism and the future of newspapers was the iPad (this was just after the iPad was new). Suddenly bullshit articles about us started appearing constantly. The first one I remember was about the Safari cookie case, if anyone remembers that. Basically Safari had shipped a third party cookie filter that broke the web as a "privacy" feature. Because it didn't work and couldn't ever work Apple started adding in bizarre documented workarounds that were basically bugs in the filter, but they chose to document rather than fix, so important apps like the Facebook like button would start working again. Google started using these workarounds as was intended by Apple in order to fix its own products. The WSJ paid some academics to go dirt digging and they found this, announced Google was hacking Safari's filter etc, Apple exploited the situation, this caused regulators to go and whack us and so on. It's quite amazing how easily manipulated governments and especially regulators are by newspapers. My father used to hate Murdoch with a passion (he was in the tv biz), and after that I understood why... the power wielded by people who own newspapers is phenomenal. And they do not hesitate to abuse it!
      - pas 9y ago
        > this caused regulators to go and whack us and so on. proof? links? source? Google is big, does and did a lot of things that could be a problem in the eyes of regulators.
        9y ago
- freehunter 9y ago
  Mentioning the name of a business leader (not a politician) in the context of his business dealings (not his political views) is, by definition, not bringing politics into it. You're the one who brought up politics in a decidedly non-political conversation.
- emilfihlman 9y ago
  No one brought politics into this.
jasonmp85 9y ago
I'm hearing they are a publication who is right for the wrong reasons.

by sqdbps 9y ago

>This is pure bullshit, and bullshit journalism. It's the "Wall Street Journal", a Murdoch business publication that approves of every business as long as it isn't Google.

bllguo 9y ago

Recently my impression of the WSJ is incredibly poor. Just BS article after BS article. To me the bias has never been more obvious. Though I only see their content on aggregators like HN, so perhaps that plays a part.

dsacco 9y ago

> It's the "Wall Street Journal", a Murdoch business publication that approves of every business as long as it isn't Google. Please don't bring politics into this. If you have a substantive criticism about the WSJ's article, make that criticism. The one you've made is ideological and unpersuasive.

sqdbps 9y ago
Political? Rupert Murdoch's distain for Google is well documented, and he isn't shy about siccing his papers on them: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/mar/26/battle-rupert-murdoch-google-advertising-e-commerce-fake-news-david-clementi-bbc https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/mar/26/battle-rupert-...
jacksmith21006 9y ago
Is this honestly a question? Murdoch disdain for Google is well known.
- dsacco 9y ago
  Rupert Murdoch can have well documented dislike for Google without his dislike intrinsically kneecapping the Wall Street Journal’s journalistic integrity. The comment I replied to criticizes the article we’re discussing categorically by origin, instead of specifically on merits. Murdoch’s agenda can be a thesis statement for why the WSJ has poor journalistic integrity with respect to Google, but it doesn't demonstrate that failing on its own, nor is merely calling out that someone in a position of power has an agenda a well-reasoned thesis. Basically, it’s not contributing anything more interesting to the discussion, and is just going to attract other comments or upvotes that agree. That’s not insightful discussion, it’s just ingroup commiseration.
  - namdnay 9y ago
    In this case, Murdoch has a track record of using his media empire to push his business and political views, so it's really quite appropriate.
  - Pxtl 9y ago
    Murdoch also has a well known taste for owning news sources that have no journalistic integrity.
  - peoplewindow 9y ago
    Appreciate the demand for precision, but you won't get more than anecdotes in this case. I used to work for Google and I remember the 180 degree turn in WSJ's output after Murdoch gave a speech in which he announced Google News was killing journalism and the future of newspapers was the iPad (this was just after the iPad was new). Suddenly bullshit articles about us started appearing constantly. The first one I remember was about the Safari cookie case, if anyone remembers that. Basically Safari had shipped a third party cookie filter that broke the web as a "privacy" feature. Because it didn't work and couldn't ever work Apple started adding in bizarre documented workarounds that were basically bugs in the filter, but they chose to document rather than fix, so important apps like the Facebook like button would start working again. Google started using these workarounds as was intended by Apple in order to fix its own products. The WSJ paid some academics to go dirt digging and they found this, announced Google was hacking Safari's filter etc, Apple exploited the situation, this caused regulators to go and whack us and so on. It's quite amazing how easily manipulated governments and especially regulators are by newspapers. My father used to hate Murdoch with a passion (he was in the tv biz), and after that I understood why... the power wielded by people who own newspapers is phenomenal. And they do not hesitate to abuse it!
    - pas 9y ago
      > this caused regulators to go and whack us and so on. proof? links? source? Google is big, does and did a lot of things that could be a problem in the eyes of regulators.
      - 9y ago
freehunter 9y ago
Mentioning the name of a business leader (not a politician) in the context of his business dealings (not his political views) is, by definition, not bringing politics into it. You're the one who brought up politics in a decidedly non-political conversation.
emilfihlman 9y ago
No one brought politics into this.

jasonmp85 9y ago

I'm hearing they are a publication who is right for the wrong reasons.