Murdoch's new propaganda organ (WSJ) begins tuning up

[TechBear_Seattle]

I work in a brokerage firm, and of course we subscribe to the Wall Street Journal. I was first in to work today, so I brought in the papers sitting outside our door. The first teaser-headline was: Why We Need More Dick Cheney | Opinion: A13 The drawing of Dick was quite flattering, not at all like actual photos of him where he resembles a bloated toad (for some odd reason, the WSJ never runs photos of people, just drawings.)

Turning to page A13, I find an above-the-fold, more than half a page essay about how Dick has been absolutely vital to the strength, security and stability of the United States. I only skimmed the sycophantic fawning (too early in the morning to deal with the stench) but that was quite enough, thank you. I have to say, I was impressed: Murdoch's take-over has not yet become official, and already the editorial board has taken the new ownership to heart. I expect they are desperate to prove their loyalty to The Party lest they be thrown out for presumed treason by their new boss.

Sad, very sad. For twelve years I've worked here, and for twelve years I've been reading the WSJ. They have rarely given partisan opinion pieces, and even they have been comparably neutral (when compared to Faux News, that is, which really is not much of an accomplishment. But I digress.) On other matters, the Journal has had a pretty good reputation for journalism, if you acknowledge and see through the bias towards the moneyed class. It looks like my fears have already started coming true: the Wall Street Journal is on its way towards becoming an up-scale New York Post.

If you have an on-line subscription to the WSJ, you can find the editorial blow-job at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118714334249198099.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

[rodeodance]

1. I read the preview. Really not interested in reading the rest.

[meegbear]

2. Maybe it's me ...

but hasn't their Opinion page ALWAYS been conservative?

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. Conservative, yes. Openly partisan, not so much

The Journal has its biases, yes. (So does that bastion of journalistic integrity, the Christian Science Monitor. Look up information about medical tech in the CSM, I dare you!) If you acknowledge those biases and keep them in mind, the reporting in the Journal has been noteably above average. At the very least, they have been very careful to avoid the sensationalism that has replaced journalistic integrity.

This editorial is something I've never seen in the Journal before. They have done political articles before, of course, but such articles have focused on how national elections and parties (and occasionally New York State or New York City elections and parties) will affect the financial markets directly or indirectly. This overt partisanship, this blatant toadying is something new, even when looking back six years to when the misAdministration was seen as a conservative victory.

[meegbear]

4. There lies the difference ...

back in the '90s, for example, the editorial page would write something like "Investigate Clinton's Role in Lindbergh Kidnapping" while the front page would have a story proving it false.

And if you're dare me, make it a REAL dare; the CSM is based in Boston and if they would deliver it, as opposed to mailing it so it's a day old, I would subscribe to it.

[WCGreen]

5. Paul Gigot the Editorial Page editor is a flaming conservative...

The Editorial Page has always been to the right of Attila the Hun...

[DaveinMD]

6. The editorial page

has always been extremely conservative. But there has always been a firm wall of separation from the news division. That will end with Murdock.

[MadHound]

7. Yep, it's sad what Murdoch is going to do to another fine newspaper

I'll grant you, the editorial staff of the WSJ was rather conservative. But at least they were an honest broker in financial and other news. Now I fear that WSJ will just become another Murdoch mouthpiece, speaking what he says, pumping up the market for Murdochs own gain. Sad, really sad. I probably won't buy another copy of the WSJ again.