« Rock and hard place | Main | You leave your computer for a couple hours and... »

July 19, 2007



Yup. Exactly the same thing at The New Republic. Any journalist that thinks that the strong ideological/party views of the owners/managers of a media voice won't directly (or ultimately) affect what kinds of stories and emphasis are published, is probably not competent to distinguish fact from fiction.


Just because the WSJ has a conservative editorial board doesn't mean that its journalists are a coven of like-minded ideologue hacks.

In fact, the WSJ won 2 pulitzers in 2007 - including the pulitzer for public service - for covering scandals and corruption in big business.

according to the Pulitzer page:

[the Public Service Award was] Awarded to The Wall Street Journal for its creative and comprehensive probe into backdated stock options for business executives that triggered investigations, the ouster of top officials and widespread change in corporate America.

It's perfectly fair to disagree with the WSJ's editorial stance, but their reporting is top-notch.

The WSJ is not, and has never been, Fox News. I think it's perfectly justified that their reporters are concerned that with a Murdoch takeover they will suffer a tabloidization of sorts.


jmc: You are correct on the general excellent reporting by the WSJ staff. Surely, however, it must have been obvious to them that the editorial position (often counter-factual from the WSJ's own reporting) was a danger signal - an IED waiting to happen. In struggles for truth and freedom versus rights of ownership, ultimately the owners prevail.

Media consolidation by buy-outs of (protective) family owned newspapers didn't start this year - it's hard to think of one case where this hasn't happened over the post WWII years.

The comments to this entry are closed.