I think its stupid to say "WSJ is sucking corporate..." I have feeling you people have never even read the Journal.

The Wall Street Journal broke the Enron story, so before you going mindlessly labelling it as mouthpiece for the robber barrons, you should know what you are talking about.

The Wall Street Journal's audience is made up largely of the investment community - corporations large and small as well as individidual investors who maybe very wealthy or just middle class. Its reputation hinges upon it being a reputable source of news and if it delves into just regurgitating propaganda it no longer serves the people who read it.

But here's the most important thing: after actually reading the article in question, I think the Journal's approach was pretty fair. Perhaps Mr Leonard, who is writing for an organ steeped in ideology,no longer recognizes what straight news coverage looks like. Throughout the story, the reporters do make it pretty clear that the attacks on Mr Schlosser and the film are of dubious merit. For example, its been reported Schlosser supports marijuana legalization, as if that has any bearing on the facts of Fast Food Nation. The article was merely stating that McDonald's and other targets of FFN are revving up their PR activities and may be funding groups that are protesting the film and Mr Schlosser.

Its not going to win a Pulitzer, but it was mildly interesting.

Oh- and all you corporate conspiracy theorists: The film Fast Food Nation is being distributed by FOX Searchlight.

Your journalistic point is certainly valid.

But you're not going to get me to stop eating Big Macs. Not entirely, anyway. And those McDonald's fries -- I salivate at the thought.

See, everyone knows you're not supposed to live on that kind of stuff -- even McDonald's. They have a nice selection of salads that are quite nutritious. And I recall one article, about the Zone diet, noting that an Egg McMuffin was an entirely appropriate breakfast, especially if accompanied by milk, which McDonald's also sells.

I would be as interested in factual criticisms of "Fast Food Nation" as you, but even without such information, nobody is going to kill off fast food. It's way too tasty and fun. Taco Bell's Gorditas? Too yummy. Burger King's fish sandwich? Delicious and so good for you.

And don't forget that Subway, until recently the most unrelentingly nutrition-conscious food vendor in America, is all about fast food.

If I were writing a book on this subject, it would be something like "Big Macs Without Guilt: Fast Food and a Balanced Diet".

In short, my greatest criticism of most critics of fast food is that they focus on the food and not the people eating it. To paraphrase the NRA, fast food doesn't make people fat; people make people fat.

See? I do not have to order those fries to go with my burger. Do I?

Doug Wilson

Naples, Florida

Gasp! The Journal not giving me fair and balanced (or even researched) reporting of corporate misdeeds? What next? NBC news holding back a story about the latest Microsoft Windows security exploit?

On TV I saw a commercial promoting a triple burger with cheese and bacon (about 1200 calories). Terrific. Does anyone still wonder that 50 plus percent of Americans are overweight and even obese.So where is the beef? Keep eating, you dont weigh 450 pounds yet and can still get through your door.

The one-sentence summary of the WSJ is 'good news section, horrible right-wing editorial section'.

Good article here criticizing the WSJ - one thing, why bother linking to the WSJ article which requires a subscription? They don't deserve it. It's sort of free advertising for them.

The Wall Street Journal has been sucking corporate cock for as long as there have been corporations. I would expect nothing less from them.

It is the Wall Street Journal. The Rich Man's answer to Fox News. They're so conservative they don't run pictures of their columnists, not trusting that "new fangled" technology. Heck half of them probably thinks it steals their sould. The irony there is they don't have any!