4 ms·
"... I doubt the WSJ would publish a letter like this if it were unconfirmed. ..." Email isn't the most reliable medium and the WSJ owner is Rupert Murdoch.
by bootload 18y ago
"... I doubt the WSJ would publish a letter like this if it were unconfirmed. ..."
Email isn't the most reliable medium and the WSJ owner is Rupert Murdoch.
- tptacek 18y agoWhether you like Murdoch's politics or not, the WSJ is one of the most respected newsgathering organizations in the world. They didn't blow their credibility on a fake memo. This story didn't run on the (partisan) WSJ editorial page. It ran on the front page. It's obviously true.
- bootload 18y ago"... Whether you like Murdoch's politics or not, the WSJ is one of the most respected newsgathering organizations in the world. They didn't blow their credibility on a fake memo. ..." Calm down. I posted the article very early and only the WSJ & CNBC reporting breaking news. No other confirmation. This isn't about politics, it's exercising skepticism until the news is confirmed by a number of sources.
- jonknee 18y agoEarly or not, when it's a major financial story on the front of the WSJ there isn't a need to exercise skepticism. Or at least skepticism because Murdoch owns them, that's starting to get paranoid.
- tptacek 18y agoIt's one thing to express skepticism and another to advance the argument that one of the most credible news organizations in the world would fake a story because of the influence of Rupert Murdoch. Just clearing that up.