3 ms·

Why do you say that the WSJ is the Fox News of journalism? They have articles that aren't great but for the most part have high quality content.

by akama 12y ago

unclebucknasty 12y ago
I think the GP is referring to a tendency to promote a certain ideology under the guise of news, versus engaging in objective journalism.
- akama 12y ago
  The editorials are really heavy handed about that, however I've never thought that the news was any more influenced then any other news source.
  - zorrb 12y ago
    To be fair, I thought the point of an editorial was for the author to express their opinion. [1] [1] From dictionary.com: 'Editorial definition, an article in a newspaper or other periodical or on a website presenting the opinion of the publisher, writer, or editor'
    - unclebucknasty 12y ago
      I think the difference would be a paper that features editorials which present a diversity of views versus one that seems to editorialize consistently in support of a particular ideology.
- xux 12y ago
  Isn't that most news organizations these days? There's no arrangement of facts that is completely neutral. You have to lean one way.
  - unclebucknasty 12y ago
    >Isn't that most news organizations these days? Seems so. But, I think it's a question of relative degree. For instance, the comment to which I was responding seemed to take exception to the WSJ comparison with Fox News. That's a tacit acknowledgment of a certain belief about Fox News and their degree of bias. >There's no arrangement of facts that is completely neutral. You have to lean one way. Well, the phrase "arrangement of facts" is a bit loaded in that it suggests a manipulation of facts, so given that premise, yeah, the objective would seemingly be to "lean". However, I don't see any reason that the mere presentation of facts must lean in any direction. But, maybe it's just a testament to how far gone we are in this age of infotainment that it's hard to even imagine that facts can be presented without bias.
    - Portan 12y ago
      Without arrangement and bias, journalism would have no value. Searching for a random word on Google will give you a pile of facts but it's not interesting. People want to read something interesting to them. So it must be biased in a way they'll be interested in. Whether that's "dodgy company gets its comeuppance", "my favourite party does something good" or "person dies in an accident".
      - unclebucknasty 12y ago
        >Without arrangement and bias, journalism would have no value. I don't know about that. Truth is stranger than fiction and there's plenty of interesting information to be had. Editorializing and slant can be juicy, but good writing/presentation is timeless. Likewise, curating and clearly presenting information of interest has tremendous value to many; potentially even more so when it's clear that there is no bias. >"dodgy company gets its comeuppance", "my favourite party does something good" or "person dies in an accident". Those could just as easily be fact-based reporting on topics of broad interest. No bias is needed in delivering such factual content to make it more compelling. For instance, replace those "headlines" with: "Facebook loses court challenge over privacy violations" "Republican party donates clothes to shelter" "Princess Diana dies in car accident"
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
acomjean 12y ago
They actually are the same company, both owned by News Corp, run by one Rupert Murdoch.
- akama 12y ago
  The broadcast and traditional news of News Corporation split into two different companies back in 2013. Murdoch still owns significant parts of both new companies however.

Why do you say that the WSJ is the Fox News of journalism? They have articles that aren't great but for the most part have high quality content.

by akama 12y ago

Why do you say that the WSJ is the Fox News of journalism? They have articles that aren't great but for the most part have high quality content.

unclebucknasty 12y ago

I think the GP is referring to a tendency to promote a certain ideology under the guise of news, versus engaging in objective journalism.

akama 12y ago
The editorials are really heavy handed about that, however I've never thought that the news was any more influenced then any other news source.
- zorrb 12y ago
  To be fair, I thought the point of an editorial was for the author to express their opinion. [1] [1] From dictionary.com: 'Editorial definition, an article in a newspaper or other periodical or on a website presenting the opinion of the publisher, writer, or editor'
  - unclebucknasty 12y ago
    I think the difference would be a paper that features editorials which present a diversity of views versus one that seems to editorialize consistently in support of a particular ideology.
xux 12y ago
Isn't that most news organizations these days? There's no arrangement of facts that is completely neutral. You have to lean one way.
- unclebucknasty 12y ago
  >Isn't that most news organizations these days? Seems so. But, I think it's a question of relative degree. For instance, the comment to which I was responding seemed to take exception to the WSJ comparison with Fox News. That's a tacit acknowledgment of a certain belief about Fox News and their degree of bias. >There's no arrangement of facts that is completely neutral. You have to lean one way. Well, the phrase "arrangement of facts" is a bit loaded in that it suggests a manipulation of facts, so given that premise, yeah, the objective would seemingly be to "lean". However, I don't see any reason that the mere presentation of facts must lean in any direction. But, maybe it's just a testament to how far gone we are in this age of infotainment that it's hard to even imagine that facts can be presented without bias.
  - Portan 12y ago
    Without arrangement and bias, journalism would have no value. Searching for a random word on Google will give you a pile of facts but it's not interesting. People want to read something interesting to them. So it must be biased in a way they'll be interested in. Whether that's "dodgy company gets its comeuppance", "my favourite party does something good" or "person dies in an accident".
    - unclebucknasty 12y ago
      >Without arrangement and bias, journalism would have no value. I don't know about that. Truth is stranger than fiction and there's plenty of interesting information to be had. Editorializing and slant can be juicy, but good writing/presentation is timeless. Likewise, curating and clearly presenting information of interest has tremendous value to many; potentially even more so when it's clear that there is no bias. >"dodgy company gets its comeuppance", "my favourite party does something good" or "person dies in an accident". Those could just as easily be fact-based reporting on topics of broad interest. No bias is needed in delivering such factual content to make it more compelling. For instance, replace those "headlines" with: "Facebook loses court challenge over privacy violations" "Republican party donates clothes to shelter" "Princess Diana dies in car accident"

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

acomjean 12y ago

They actually are the same company, both owned by News Corp, run by one Rupert Murdoch.

akama 12y ago
The broadcast and traditional news of News Corporation split into two different companies back in 2013. Murdoch still owns significant parts of both new companies however.