3 ms·

I'm not sure why the WSJ isn't a "proper source". But I think that people want more of a story so they tend to favor news articles over official sources. If yo

I'm not sure why the WSJ isn't a "proper source". But I think that people want more of a story so they tend to favor news articles over official sources. If you look at the BLS report, it's hard to even read because of the font. I believe both are of value, but that's why I figure people favor the other formats.

aguyfromnb 7y ago
>I'm not sure why the WSJ isn't a "proper source". The paywall I hit on this article could be one reason.
tomrod 7y ago
Paywall, incentives to increase clicks, and so forth.
ecocentrik 7y ago
I canceled my subscription last year because of the soft-core Fox News style "opinion" pieces and fact wrangling they engage in. It is a News Corp publication now. I miss the old WSJ.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
  There is an argument to be made that the opinion pieces are just there to spark sufficient amount of outrage to direct clicks to your website. WSJ, Marketwatch and multiple others follow that principle. Regular reporting still appears to happen.
  - wpietri 7y ago
    The WSJ has had a... unique... opinion section long before clicks were an issue. I think their purpose is, as with a lot of opinion writing, to make the readers feel good (smart, righteous, wise, important, justified, etc). But the WSJ has a subscriber base unusually dedicated to a) getting money, and b) keeping it. And a lot of Wall Street as an entity is less focused on value creation than cash extraction, which is a particular mindset. So the opinion section is going to reflect what's important to the key audiences. My understanding is that pre-Murdoch, the news and opinion sides were thoroughly separate. Hopefully that isn't getting lost.
    - mrscottson 7y ago
      Marketwatch, Barron's, WSJ, etc... all down the Murdoch tube of no editorial integrity. Had to stop following those news sources when they started the downhill slide.
  - dahfizz 7y ago
    Would you put up with this in any other industry? "It's okay that mega-million corporation X misleads and manipulates people in order to take money from them, because sometimes it uses that money in a meagerly beneficial way"
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
      I am confused. I am not sure this is an accurate rephrasing of what I said. Could you elaborate a little bit?
anoraca 7y ago
It is largely owned and directed by Rupert Murdoch who is infamous for inflammatory tabloid journalism (New York Post, Fox News, etc.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch

aguyfromnb 7y ago

>I'm not sure why the WSJ isn't a "proper source". The paywall I hit on this article could be one reason.

tomrod 7y ago

Paywall, incentives to increase clicks, and so forth.

ecocentrik 7y ago

I canceled my subscription last year because of the soft-core Fox News style "opinion" pieces and fact wrangling they engage in. It is a News Corp publication now. I miss the old WSJ.

A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
There is an argument to be made that the opinion pieces are just there to spark sufficient amount of outrage to direct clicks to your website. WSJ, Marketwatch and multiple others follow that principle. Regular reporting still appears to happen.
- wpietri 7y ago
  The WSJ has had a... unique... opinion section long before clicks were an issue. I think their purpose is, as with a lot of opinion writing, to make the readers feel good (smart, righteous, wise, important, justified, etc). But the WSJ has a subscriber base unusually dedicated to a) getting money, and b) keeping it. And a lot of Wall Street as an entity is less focused on value creation than cash extraction, which is a particular mindset. So the opinion section is going to reflect what's important to the key audiences. My understanding is that pre-Murdoch, the news and opinion sides were thoroughly separate. Hopefully that isn't getting lost.
  - mrscottson 7y ago
    Marketwatch, Barron's, WSJ, etc... all down the Murdoch tube of no editorial integrity. Had to stop following those news sources when they started the downhill slide.
- dahfizz 7y ago
  Would you put up with this in any other industry? "It's okay that mega-million corporation X misleads and manipulates people in order to take money from them, because sometimes it uses that money in a meagerly beneficial way"
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
    I am confused. I am not sure this is an accurate rephrasing of what I said. Could you elaborate a little bit?

anoraca 7y ago

It is largely owned and directed by Rupert Murdoch who is infamous for inflammatory tabloid journalism (New York Post, Fox News, etc.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch