2 ms·
It's also worth keeping in mind the WSJ has a very bad track record for climate change denial. See, for example, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climat
by davedx 8y ago
It's also worth keeping in mind the WSJ has a very bad track record for climate change denial.
See, for example, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jun/11/the-wall-street-journal-keeps-peddling-big-oil-propaganda https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
This article is highly questionable given their history.
- tanderson92 8y agoThat article is the WSJ Opinion page which is very different from their reporting.
- davedx 8y agoReally? https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2015/08/11/its-not-just-the-editorial-page-study-finds-wsj/204855 https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2015/08/11/its-not-just-th... You can downvote me if you want. It doesn't stop the WSJ being a highly objectionable source for anything related to climate change.
- tanderson92 8y agoI didn't downvote you. It remains the case that citing problems exclusive to its Opinion page, as you did in your first post, is a poor way of critiquing the news reporting section.