4 ms·

> The WSJ is one of the few quite reputable news rooms out there. The WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch. The credibility of their newsroom begins being compromise

by harry8 6y ago

> The WSJ is one of the few quite reputable news rooms out there. The WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch. The credibility of their newsroom begins being compromised by his owning it. He will destroy its credibility utterly by selling it for politicial influence in news reporting. Just as he has everywhere he has bought media. The particular example of compromised credibility that comes to mind is the Times of London which is now Murdoch propaganda (all be it vastly more polite than fox news) where it used to do credible news reporting. Times reporting now can still be excellent but has a "be cautious" flag on it that it used not to have in the days prior to Mudoch. The man has become vastly worse in the past couple of decades as has everything he touches.

amadeuspagel 6y ago
Murdoch bought the WSJ in 2007. When is he going to start destroying its credibility "utterly"?
- SquishyPanda23 6y ago
  Uh have you read their commentary/opinions? Half the time they come off as if they're trolling. I'm sure at one point they were a thinking man's newspaper. At this point they're just fan service for people who have drunk the koolaid but can't stomach Fox's mass market approach.
  - harry8 6y ago
    To be fair the WSJ has always had some pretty outlandish opinion pieces. The tradition was that these were separate to the news reporting and the news reporting was untouched by them. But now it's in Murdoch stable. Sad.
- harry8 6y ago
  He started in 2007. The date when you consider it utterly destroyed is up to the reader.
jrockway 6y ago
I feel like he hasn't taken any actions to compromise the credibility of the Journal. Remember their Theranos coverage? Wikipedia writes: "Elizabeth Holmes asked Rupert Murdoch —- who at the time was a major investor in Theranos and owner of the Journal — to "personally kill" an investigative piece being written about Theranos. Murdoch refused, instead stating that he "had confidence in editors to handle the truth - whatever it may be". Murdoch went on to lose approximately $100 million in his investments in Theranos." The opinion columns slant very far right, and I'm sure Murdoch has played some role in that. I subscribe to the Journal and am outraged every time I see them. But, it's good to see what other people are talking about. It does you no harm to read an opinion column that you vehemently disagree with. I'm sure people feel the same way about opinion columns in The New York Times, which I also read and tend to agree with. My TL;DR here is that if you are interested in the news, you should get it from a variety of reputable sources. The Journal has proved over the years that it is reputable. I haven't seen anything recently that would change my mind. I have friends that get all their news through social media and they are constantly outraged based on pure misinformation. If they read the Journal, they'd have a much better understanding of the facts. (Same goes for the New York Times, or Washington Post, or The Guardian.)

by harry8 6y ago

amadeuspagel 6y ago

Murdoch bought the WSJ in 2007. When is he going to start destroying its credibility "utterly"?

SquishyPanda23 6y ago
Uh have you read their commentary/opinions? Half the time they come off as if they're trolling. I'm sure at one point they were a thinking man's newspaper. At this point they're just fan service for people who have drunk the koolaid but can't stomach Fox's mass market approach.
- harry8 6y ago
  To be fair the WSJ has always had some pretty outlandish opinion pieces. The tradition was that these were separate to the news reporting and the news reporting was untouched by them. But now it's in Murdoch stable. Sad.
harry8 6y ago
He started in 2007. The date when you consider it utterly destroyed is up to the reader.

jrockway 6y ago

I feel like he hasn't taken any actions to compromise the credibility of the Journal. Remember their Theranos coverage? Wikipedia writes: "Elizabeth Holmes asked Rupert Murdoch —- who at the time was a major investor in Theranos and owner of the Journal — to "personally kill" an investigative piece being written about Theranos. Murdoch refused, instead stating that he "had confidence in editors to handle the truth - whatever it may be". Murdoch went on to lose approximately $100 million in his investments in Theranos." The opinion columns slant very far right, and I'm sure Murdoch has played some role in that. I subscribe to the Journal and am outraged every time I see them. But, it's good to see what other people are talking about. It does you no harm to read an opinion column that you vehemently disagree with. I'm sure people feel the same way about opinion columns in The New York Times, which I also read and tend to agree with. My TL;DR here is that if you are interested in the news, you should get it from a variety of reputable sources. The Journal has proved over the years that it is reputable. I haven't seen anything recently that would change my mind. I have friends that get all their news through social media and they are constantly outraged based on pure misinformation. If they read the Journal, they'd have a much better understanding of the facts. (Same goes for the New York Times, or Washington Post, or The Guardian.)