and on Rachel....why are we even listening to the Wall Street journal reporter??

[a kennedy]

WSJ: why is Whitaker over seeing the Mueller investigation??? The Wall Street Journal?? Really?? Rupert Murdock’s rag.....

[JCMach1]

1. Because it was a big scoop... don't shoot the messenger

[a kennedy]

3. sorry, just asking......IT'S THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.

[chillfactor]

8. and the WSJ has uncovered some great reporting

in the last few months. Good grief already.

[shanny]

16. Aaaaaaand their editorial page is shit

but their reporting is generally good, especially if you consider the source and edit out any value judgments.

[manor321]

2. WSJ had a huge important expose today on Trump's involvement in payoffs to Daniels / McDougal

They have some journalists who do a good job.

Editorial is a garbage dump, though.

[a kennedy]

4. So......we believe one side but despise the other???

[elleng]

7. You can despise whomever you want,

or you can ignore that part of the paper, and learn from the rest.

[elleng]

5. They do good reporting;

their opinions and editorials differ entirely.

[JCMach1]

15. This right here...

[chillfactor]

6. and WHY would we not listen to him?

seems to me this is a HUGE scoop and I bet much more will be uncovered. and WHY are you attacking the reporter? Are you here to defend a dishonest prick like the AG?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. The WSJ has a very good, reputable and objective news staff

which is completely separate from their editorial staff. They've come up with some excellent scoops which have been very damaging to Trump.

[Demwolv]

10. Least biased

Wall Street journal has been rated by many sites as being the least biased and most reliable news source in recent years.

Don’t fall into the republican trap. Just because. Something doesn’t back up your reality doesn’t mean it’s unreliable.

[a kennedy]

11. fall into the republican trap??? Really?? IT'S OWNED BY RUPERT MURDUCh....

[Demwolv]

12. Just because it's owned by Murdoch

Doesn’t make it automatically evil. I’ve seen often that it has been seen as the least biased. I could very well be proven wrong.

But again: just because it doesn’t align with your views doesn’t automatically make it wrong.

[PoliticAverse]

13. Who didn't even interfere with the Theranos expose and that cost him millions of dollars.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/29/rupert-murdoch-theranos-investment-wall-street-journal

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. Knee jerking much?

The WSJ's editorial page is a dumpster fire but the news reporting is first-rate. Murdoch stays out of the news department.

[a kennedy]

17. Well thank you very much then.......

[a kennedy]

18. oh, and I forgot this part....Murdoch stays out of this part......

Is that like he stays out of all the faux noise programming?? Just asking.