5 ms·

WSJ has pretty biased opinion section though where they have almost no standards.

by Bhilai 6y ago

wrsh07 6y ago
I agree (as someone to left of the wsj median), but it's worth knowing that the editorial desk is an entirely different team from the opinion desk (with different standards etc) Is this good? I don't think so, but it's worth being aware of, like to understand "why is that brand diluting itself with an opinion desk?" (I don't have a satisfying answer though) https://www.quora.com/Is-there-anything-structurally-different-about-an-editorial-vs-an-op-ed-piece-other-than-who-writes-it https://www.quora.com/Is-there-anything-structurally-differe...
phs318u 6y ago
Which is typical of the approach Murdoch takes with his "high brow" media properties. Quality news, batshit crazy opinion.
temp8964 6y ago
Which one is worse than the NYT "senior administration official" op-ed?
WillPostForFood 6y ago
pretty biased opinion section Like, that's what an editorial page is? What you are really saying is, they don't have the same bias as you. As for standards, that's really unfair. They have high standards and are much more apt to invite opposing opinions than the NYT, or WaPo. They refused to endorse Trump in 2016. Good people can disagree with you for real reasons, not because they have lower standards.
- fulafel 6y ago
  There's bias and then there's intentional misleading. Providing a platform for the Koch etc funded think-tanks doesn't fit into "just bias". Eg their attempts to undermine climate science.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    Which billionaires should I be afraid of the Koch Bros or Bezos and Soros? I'm losing track. Tell me who I should hate.
    - kortilla 6y ago
      Depends on if you like the letter R or the letter D.
    - roenxi 6y ago
      Hate I'm not sure about, but you should be nervous and distrustful of anyone to whom buying a PR firm is relatively cheap (as in, 2-3 days income cheap).
    - ATsch 6y ago
      Every single one of them. But if we are to make a ranking, I think spreading climate denial to protect your oil empire does do a lot make you uniquely loathe worthy.
    - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      Might as well add the Masshole, 'strayan and Cheeto in Cheif to that list. I can't think of a single politically involved billionaire who doesn't have at least a couple very onerous "keep the unwashed masses under control" type policies they are trying to advance. Edit:typo
  - WillPostForFood 6y ago
    Again, you’re just confusing disagreement for bias. As if The NY Times or WaPo don’t provide a platforms for left wing think tanks? Are you worried about the bias of The NY Times Editorial page when they undermine the science of gender or IQ? The WSJ editorial page should be the most important thing you read every day so you can actually understand the reasoning (yes reason) of people with different positions than you.
    - fulafel 6y ago
      No, there's not a "both sides do it" situation in this production of intentionally misleading content in the most prominent newspapers.
ekianjo 6y ago
That's better than other newspapers whose whole news section is just an opinion section by all metrics.
panarky 6y ago
The great thing about biased opinion in a financial newspaper is that if you trade based on that opinion, chances are you'll lose money. From 2008 through 2016, WSJ opinion hammered on the supposed fiscal recklessness of the US federal government, warned that inflation and interest rates would skyrocket, and fretted about bond vigilantes. If you traded on this opinion and shorted long-term bonds, you would have lost a lot of money. Naturally, their promised inflation, interest rates and bond vigilantes never materialized. Curiously, they've been mostly silent about fiscal recklessness since 2016, despite $3 trillion deficits.
- vkou 6y ago
  Fortunately, it's likely that they'll again have a chance to start harping on fiscal recklessness, starting on January 21st, 2021.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  It makes complete sense to me to not be honest with your opinion on economic predictions. It would be insider trading light. And if you could broadcast misinformation to a broader public of traders...
- thu2111 6y ago
  In fairness, all those things are the expected outcomes of hugely profligate spending and have been seen in other economies that adopted the same policies. It's surely a bit of an open question why the USA, and to some extent other western countries, have been able to sustain such huge deficits for so long apparently in defiance of financial gravity. I think you're implying the WSJ's interest in the topic was entirely political in nature, but it's also possible they just noticed that their predictions kept not coming true and dropped it for that reason. After all, Trump promised big spending with tax decreases, with correspondingly huge deficits, and there doesn't seem to have been any negative effect of that (yet).
rswail 6y ago
Yes, in the same edition of the newspaper, in the news section, the Hunter Biden "story" was evaluated and found without merit. Meanwhile, in the opinion pages, Strassell promoted it with abandon.
- Grakel 6y ago
  The story is still developing and had several major points that are clearly worth further investigation. Please don't dismiss this issue as without merit, this will be investigated long after the election no matter who wins.
  - evgen 6y ago
    The only ongoing developments in this story are embarrassing revelations that show what an amateur hour version of Russian disinformation this is and the sort of idiots who are prepared to believe it (and the useful idiots like Greenwald who get paid to promote it.) Not only do we have the Tucker Carlson "USPS ate my homework" saga, we have the verification source that turns out to be completely made up. Totally. Without. Merit.
    - Grakel 6y ago
      Glenn Greenwald is probably the last neutral journalist. Respected worldwide for publishing the Snowden story, which the conservative establishment was totally against, he is completely independent of partisan politics, and is after the real story.
      - evgen 6y ago
        Glenn Greenwald is a hack. He stumbled into his one big scoop (Snowden) and since then has not really distinguished himself or shown that one case to be anything more than a lucky break. He is not independent of partisan politics, he is simply partisan on an anti-establishment axis.
    - Grakel 6y ago
      Here's ABC news from June of last year: https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1322376502403604480?s=09 https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1322376502403604480?...

WSJ has pretty biased opinion section though where they have almost no standards.

by Bhilai 6y ago

WSJ has pretty biased opinion section though where they have almost no standards.

I agree (as someone to left of the wsj median), but it's worth knowing that the editorial desk is an entirely different team from the opinion desk (with different standards etc) Is this good? I don't think so, but it's worth being aware of, like to understand "why is that brand diluting itself with an opinion desk?" (I don't have a satisfying answer though) https://www.quora.com/Is-there-anything-structurally-different-about-an-editorial-vs-an-op-ed-piece-other-than-who-writes-it https://www.quora.com/Is-there-anything-structurally-differe...

phs318u 6y ago

Which is typical of the approach Murdoch takes with his "high brow" media properties. Quality news, batshit crazy opinion.

temp8964 6y ago

Which one is worse than the NYT "senior administration official" op-ed?

WillPostForFood 6y ago

pretty biased opinion section Like, that's what an editorial page is? What you are really saying is, they don't have the same bias as you. As for standards, that's really unfair. They have high standards and are much more apt to invite opposing opinions than the NYT, or WaPo. They refused to endorse Trump in 2016. Good people can disagree with you for real reasons, not because they have lower standards.

fulafel 6y ago
There's bias and then there's intentional misleading. Providing a platform for the Koch etc funded think-tanks doesn't fit into "just bias". Eg their attempts to undermine climate science.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Which billionaires should I be afraid of the Koch Bros or Bezos and Soros? I'm losing track. Tell me who I should hate.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    Depends on if you like the letter R or the letter D.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    Hate I'm not sure about, but you should be nervous and distrustful of anyone to whom buying a PR firm is relatively cheap (as in, 2-3 days income cheap).
  - ATsch 6y ago
    Every single one of them. But if we are to make a ranking, I think spreading climate denial to protect your oil empire does do a lot make you uniquely loathe worthy.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    Might as well add the Masshole, 'strayan and Cheeto in Cheif to that list. I can't think of a single politically involved billionaire who doesn't have at least a couple very onerous "keep the unwashed masses under control" type policies they are trying to advance. Edit:typo
- WillPostForFood 6y ago
  Again, you’re just confusing disagreement for bias. As if The NY Times or WaPo don’t provide a platforms for left wing think tanks? Are you worried about the bias of The NY Times Editorial page when they undermine the science of gender or IQ? The WSJ editorial page should be the most important thing you read every day so you can actually understand the reasoning (yes reason) of people with different positions than you.
  - fulafel 6y ago
    No, there's not a "both sides do it" situation in this production of intentionally misleading content in the most prominent newspapers.

ekianjo 6y ago

That's better than other newspapers whose whole news section is just an opinion section by all metrics.

panarky 6y ago

The great thing about biased opinion in a financial newspaper is that if you trade based on that opinion, chances are you'll lose money. From 2008 through 2016, WSJ opinion hammered on the supposed fiscal recklessness of the US federal government, warned that inflation and interest rates would skyrocket, and fretted about bond vigilantes. If you traded on this opinion and shorted long-term bonds, you would have lost a lot of money. Naturally, their promised inflation, interest rates and bond vigilantes never materialized. Curiously, they've been mostly silent about fiscal recklessness since 2016, despite $3 trillion deficits.

vkou 6y ago
Fortunately, it's likely that they'll again have a chance to start harping on fiscal recklessness, starting on January 21st, 2021.
raxxorrax 6y ago
It makes complete sense to me to not be honest with your opinion on economic predictions. It would be insider trading light. And if you could broadcast misinformation to a broader public of traders...
thu2111 6y ago
In fairness, all those things are the expected outcomes of hugely profligate spending and have been seen in other economies that adopted the same policies. It's surely a bit of an open question why the USA, and to some extent other western countries, have been able to sustain such huge deficits for so long apparently in defiance of financial gravity. I think you're implying the WSJ's interest in the topic was entirely political in nature, but it's also possible they just noticed that their predictions kept not coming true and dropped it for that reason. After all, Trump promised big spending with tax decreases, with correspondingly huge deficits, and there doesn't seem to have been any negative effect of that (yet).

rswail 6y ago

Yes, in the same edition of the newspaper, in the news section, the Hunter Biden "story" was evaluated and found without merit. Meanwhile, in the opinion pages, Strassell promoted it with abandon.

Grakel 6y ago
The story is still developing and had several major points that are clearly worth further investigation. Please don't dismiss this issue as without merit, this will be investigated long after the election no matter who wins.
- evgen 6y ago
  The only ongoing developments in this story are embarrassing revelations that show what an amateur hour version of Russian disinformation this is and the sort of idiots who are prepared to believe it (and the useful idiots like Greenwald who get paid to promote it.) Not only do we have the Tucker Carlson "USPS ate my homework" saga, we have the verification source that turns out to be completely made up. Totally. Without. Merit.
  - Grakel 6y ago
    Glenn Greenwald is probably the last neutral journalist. Respected worldwide for publishing the Snowden story, which the conservative establishment was totally against, he is completely independent of partisan politics, and is after the real story.
    - evgen 6y ago
      Glenn Greenwald is a hack. He stumbled into his one big scoop (Snowden) and since then has not really distinguished himself or shown that one case to be anything more than a lucky break. He is not independent of partisan politics, he is simply partisan on an anti-establishment axis.
  - Grakel 6y ago
    Here's ABC news from June of last year: https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1322376502403604480?s=09 https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1322376502403604480?...