Letters to the Editor
-
Well, for what it's worth
I took the WSJ back in the '80s when I was an MBA student. I let my subscription lapse when I didn't have the money to afford it. It was a sad day for me because, while I refer to the WSJ as the Reactionary Rag because of it's op-ed page, I felt that the WSJ had the best, most balanced, and unbiased news reporting (mostly financial, of course) of any paper I'd seen.
Yesterday I received an offer from the WSJ for a trial subscription at a very good price. I now have the time and money to afford the WSJ. Nonetheless, the offer accelerated its way into the trash. Why? I figure the sale of the WSJ to Mr. Murdock is a forgone conclusion. I also figure that he'll be able to trash the paper in less time than my trial subscription would last. USA Today may be read by lots of people but that doesn't prevent it from being crap and Fox is the lineal descendent of the yellow journalism of Hearst and Pulitzer.
When I want news, I want, as Joe Friday used to say, just the facts, ma'am. Mr. Murdock is about the last person on the planet to give his readers that.