4 ms·
I feel like it's worth pointing out, particularly because I imagine many people dislike Murdoch here, that when the Wall St. Journal was investigating Theranos
by CSMastermind 4y ago
I feel like it's worth pointing out, particularly because I imagine many people dislike Murdoch here, that when the Wall St. Journal was investigating Theranos the company attempted to get him to quash the reporting.
He told them to pound sand and said he had every faith in the Journal's internal processes to not publish anything they couldn't prove.
Really increases the WSJ's credibility in my mind.
- jonas21 4y agoYou must have had a very low opinion of the WSJ if that's all it took.
- not2b 4y agoThe WSJ maintains very solid separation between their news division (almost always solid and rigorous, with decent fact checking, their audience of investors wants good info) and their editorial division (intensely ideological and willing to completely disregard basic facts). So it's important when evaluating a WSJ article to know which part of the publication it came from.
- Beltalowda 4y agoVery similar things can be said about a number of papers, from all sorts of different ideological persuasions.
- dgfitz 4y agoWSJ broke the theranos story, I’m not sure what relevance any of these other ambiguous papers you’re vaguely referring to have to do with the current thread.
- bruceb 4y agoOr Murdoch's media empire is worth more than losing mere $100m+ on Theranos. Isn't act of integrity, just common sense.
- pydry 4y agoIt's a pretty common PR tactic to try and publish your own bad news so that you can at least somewhat control the narrative. He likely knew by this point (or even way before) that it was inevitably going to come out at some point.