Letters to the Editor
-
Karma's a Bitch
Well, Mr. Yount, you and your colleagues and predecessors at WSJ have spent your time busily beating the drum of the free markets and how magical it is. Takeovers? Love 'em. Well, the market has spoken, my friend. I'm not much for biblical quotes, but I do agree that "As ye sow, so shall ye reap."
-
Does it really matter who runs Enter-Business Tonite?
I have tried to find solid advice that human beings can use in the pages of several business publications, for years, and I've given up. All I've found in the pages of the WSJ, Business Week and the other rags is boosterism, conservative political editorials and incessant back-slapping.
The addition of Page 3 Girls to the newspaper wouldn't hurt it at all. At least breasts would offer the simulation of a connection to the real world and living human beings. It would offer counterpoint to the close-minded and superstition-driven religion that is known as "business philosophy."
Whenever I hold my nose and pick up a copy of WSJ, I'm reminded of the old TV series Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, which didn't care anything for the real content of the lives reported upon, just as long as their subjects were both rich and famous. Robin Leach glowingly described Adnan Khashoggi down to the gold faucets in the washroom of his personal jet. Not a hint of the dead bodies killed in the wars Khashoggi drummed up, for which he was the arms merchant.
During the Enron scandal, the biggest scandal to the WSJ was that Enron got caught, and this silly quibbling about honesty and ethics was hurting one of the biggest and richest corporations that still bothered to stay in America.
So let the WSJ bring on the naked girls and reader sweepstakes. It couldn't be any worse.
-
Real Journalism, I do care about
"Yet we think the takeover is bad business. Not just bad for journalism, bad for readers, bad for advertisers, but for the long-term interest of shareholders, most of all the Bancrofts. Here's why:...."
WSJ regular readers, Advertisers, Shareholders and Bancrofts....
I do not care so very much about
Because I cannot remember when any of that crowd (some reporters excepted)
ever gave a shit about us little people (except as tamely mindless consumers).
So - Go for it Rupert, monster that you are, and take the WSJ home to hell with you.
-
News Room
It is sad that Salon readers like the above writers do not recognize the immense value that is present in the news reporting of the WSJ. Sure, the editorial page is joke, but anyone who has ever picked up a copy of that paper knows that the news room is kept distinct from the editorial board.
The investigative journalism of the Journal is second to none - in fact, this year, it was the only paper to win multiple Pulitzer prizes: one for a series of articles that exposed the backdating-options scandal by executives in corporate America, and a second for a series on the downsides of industrial development in China - hardly your typical Conservative/Republican grist.
If you actually have an interest in how the world works, and god forbid, if you may actually want to invest some money at some point in your life (in something other than a Nader presidential campaign), there is no better source of information than the Journal - period. The quality of the writing makes the NYT look like a supermarket tabloid.
I shudder at the thought of Murdoch's News Corp owning the Journal, and will discontinue my patronage of Dow Jones products should the sale come to pass. To Mr. Yount, I wish you the best of luck in maintaining the independence of Dow Jones.
-
As if the back of section A wasn't already an insane crapload?
News is news and the WSJ does a good job of that. But anyone who reads the WSJ for op-ed pages at the back of A is retarded, insane or under/over medicated. These fuckwits would give de Torquemada a run for his money.
-
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.
-
To jeremys
Let me just respond to jeremys -- I do appreciate taht there is a value of the WSJ's news pages (although I believe they give far too much imprimatur to the ravings of its editorial page). I think it is a shame to see it fall into the hands of someone like Murdoch. My only point is that, even for all the good news writing they do, the paper, even the news pages, is based on a very pro-market point of view, and that for the employees who have been the purveyors of that view to cry foul when it is (finally) their ox that is gored is not something that arouses much sympathy in my heart.
-
The separation between the moronic WSJ editorial page was declining
I am sorry to admit that I subscribed to the WSJ for over 25 years. I regret that I did not cancel my subscription years ago.
There are and have been many fine journalists at the WSJ, which is why I subscribed. Back in the day when the editorial page was holding Michael Milken up as an American hero of capitalism who was being unjustly persectued, James Stewart was writing front page news articles describing how Miliken had conspired to illegally control the market for high risk bonds. The separation between the wingnut morons of the editorial page and the rest of the paper has been reduced in the last few years. This became noticable with the book reviews, which were increasingly assigned to writers from Wingnut publications like the National Review. The stain of the G.W. Bush cult of personality spread into articles on the economy and politics. I wrote a letter to the publisher, Karen Elliot House, accusing the paper of being little more than a Republican propaganda organ and never criticizing Dear Leader (G.W. Bush). She wrote back and said that they had, in fact, harshly criticized Bush's steel tarrifs. I finaly got disgusted and did not renew my subscription.
I view the purchase of WSJ by News Corp. as a point on the path that the Journal was headed down in any case. The management of the Journal seemed to believe the garbage that was published on the editorial page. Like a parasite that finishes off an already diseased host Murdoch will finish off the WSJ. Thankfully, there is still the New York Times, which has some excellent business journalism.