4 ms·

> WSJ ... editorials Twice I conducted a study: I collected everything on their op-ed page over a week or two and coded them for their political stance. I thin

> WSJ ... editorials Twice I conducted a study: I collected everything on their op-ed page over a week or two and coded them for their political stance. I think there were a couple pro-Democratic/liberal pieces out of over a hundred, and a few criticized the Republicans;[0] all the rest were pro-GOP/conservative or anti-liberal/Dem (plus a few that were apolitical). (And if you think the NY Times is the same, you're wrong: Ross Douthat, Bret Stephens (former WSJ editorial page editor) and David Brooks are all conservatives, and maybe others are too.) I encourage anyone to do the same; I feel I can almost guarantee results ever over a small sample like a day. My conclusion: WSJ op-eds and editorials are partisan mouthpieces for the Republican Party and conservatives. I don't know how Tesla fits into that, but that's their motive. Denying climate change and demonizing any attempt at a solution? Supporting big oil? Musk pulling away from Trump? Others might have a better guess than I do. [0] Criticizing Republicans is not necessarily pro-Democratic. For example, an editorial could criticize the Republicans for not cutting taxes enough.

secfirstmd 8y ago
It's owned by Rupert Murdoch, that shouldn't be a surprise.
- perl4ever 8y ago
  From what I recall, the editorial page was much the same before the Murdoch era. However, the rest of the paper was a fairly stark contrast, and I didn't have the general impression that they slanted the actual news. After Murdoch bought it I lost faith in their reporting, but I never held the editorials against them too much prior to that. The opinion section seemed like a quarantine for the right wing types. Back in Apple's pre-Steve Jobs era, though, I did get the impression that the news stories were consistently bashing Apple in a way that made it seem like they had some ulterior motivation. Apple would always be described as "troubled" or "beleagured" like a mantra. And it's passed into mythology that Apple was near bankruptcy when in fact they hoarded cash and abhorred debt. So I'm not really sure if any anti-Tesla agenda is really coming from Murdoch.
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > I didn't have the general impression that they slanted the actual news. After Murdoch bought it I lost faith in their reporting There is (or was) a lot of internal conflict over what the reporters feel is favorable coverage of Trump. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=wall+street+journal+trump+coverage+editor+tells+staff&t=hg&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=wall+street+journal+trump+coverage...

secfirstmd 8y ago

It's owned by Rupert Murdoch, that shouldn't be a surprise.

perl4ever 8y ago
From what I recall, the editorial page was much the same before the Murdoch era. However, the rest of the paper was a fairly stark contrast, and I didn't have the general impression that they slanted the actual news. After Murdoch bought it I lost faith in their reporting, but I never held the editorials against them too much prior to that. The opinion section seemed like a quarantine for the right wing types. Back in Apple's pre-Steve Jobs era, though, I did get the impression that the news stories were consistently bashing Apple in a way that made it seem like they had some ulterior motivation. Apple would always be described as "troubled" or "beleagured" like a mantra. And it's passed into mythology that Apple was near bankruptcy when in fact they hoarded cash and abhorred debt. So I'm not really sure if any anti-Tesla agenda is really coming from Murdoch.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > I didn't have the general impression that they slanted the actual news. After Murdoch bought it I lost faith in their reporting There is (or was) a lot of internal conflict over what the reporters feel is favorable coverage of Trump. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=wall+street+journal+trump+coverage+editor+tells+staff&t=hg&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=wall+street+journal+trump+coverage...