4 ms·
Actually it is an editorial, which is the opinion of the paper itself. The language mirrors Murdoch and the piece is not well written, there's a stench of edit
by OstiaAntica 15y ago
Actually it is an editorial, which is the opinion of the paper itself.
The language mirrors Murdoch and the piece is not well written, there's a stench of editorial interference here.
- fennecfoxen 15y agoMy bad, then. Anyway. Usually Mr. Murdoch is perfectly willing to put his name to shamelessly self-serving saber-rattling and rent-seeking pieces (e.g. "omg BBC. british media is government controlled. please get rid of my competition.") The article itself, FWIW, is basically a straw-man argument saying that anyone against SOPA is a bunch of dirty Commies who think it's a God-given right to pirate everything for free. If you'd like to read it (ew), Google the URL and click the resulting link. Or hack your Referer: or pretend you're Googlebot. I regret that I was only the second or third person on the comments page to say it was a load of BS and not the first. Postscript (2): as user mapgrep pointed out below, the WSJ has a bad habit of labeling editorials 'Review and Outlook'. Meh.
- fennecfoxen 15y agoPostscript. While the WSJ may be pro-SOPA, it appears its readers aren't falling for it. Polls show anti-SOPA sentiment leading with an 80-point margin: http://online.wsj.com/community/groups/media-marketing-267/topics/do-you-support-stop-online http://online.wsj.com/community/groups/media-marketing-267/t... (This is linked from the front page of wsj.com also, so it's not just an obscure corner of the site.)