When did the Wall Street Journal go over the edge?

Jesus Christ, look at this crap.

Rachel Corrie Memorial Massacre
Remember Rachel Corrie? She was a mixed-up 23-year-old lass from Olympia, Wash., whose hobbies included playing in traffic and burning the American flag. Last March the former pastime cost her her life. She stood in front of an Israeli bulldozer, but was in the driver's blind spot and was accidentally crushed to death.

Corrie's fatal game of chicken was the product of malice as well as idiocy. Her goal was to promote Palestinian terrorists' murderous campaign against Jews by obstructing Israeli efforts to destroy tunnels that are used to smuggle weapons and explosives from Egypt into the Palestinian "refugee camp" in Rafah, on the Gaza Strip.

<snip>

The Egyptians, who receive billions in American foreign aid as a reward for making "peace" with Israel a quarter century ago, have a lot of explaining to do. And it appears terror advocates like Rachel Corrie now have American as well as Israeli blood on their hands.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004168

--------------------------------------------------------

OK, the WSJ has always been conservative, but I never remember them being overtly malicious and hateful. It's one thing to advocate lower taxes or change in capital gains rates. It's quite another to gloat over a peace activist's death and blame her for a terrorist bombing.

edited to remove naughty word.

If you look back in that wsj archive, you'll find the equally inciteful articles that brough about the argentina collapse paranoia on the street. Those boys belong behind bars, not behind editors desks... lies lies lies... thats wall street... inexcusable.

Better to read the financial times and ignore american-PRAVDA.

Recently their articles about Joe Wilson describe him in unfavorable ("self-dramatizing" was one adjective) terms.

And after (Palestinian scholar) Edward Said died, they described him in pretty negative terms also.

But it's also smarter than the Wall Street Journal, IMHO.

December 12th, 2000, the day US Democracy died

who in the hell would be stupid enough to read the wsj when we have DU?:kick:

There is a world outside of DU.

truth is worthless on wall street. What is important is whether it is going up or down, and that only hinges on what "all the other" people on wall street think. Those people are reading wsj.. not DU. So if you are seriously plugged in to the US financial economy, it is a must-read, just that one is aware of the financial equivalent of last weekend's football scores... the articles that incite attacks on various companies and countries in the continuous american financial war on anything not republican.

I symmpathize with your thinking that DU is a better news source for the truth, but nobody can make money with truth. Money on wall street is based on the collusion of layers of lies... and the wsj is part of the layering structure.

the wsj is about yesterday's news--but to each his/her own---i must admit i have read it but with the coming of the computer almost anything in the wsj can be found in less time by watching the computer

"She stood in front of an Israeli bulldozer, but was in the driver's blind spot and was accidentally crushed to death.

There are pictures That prove the driver could see her.

She had a very clear vision for the future, and laid down her life to try to bring it about. The greedy succubi who subscribe to the WSJ are so foreign to the concept of personal risk that it looks mixed up to them when a person actually has ideals and principles.

paper with decent reporting ten to fifteen years ago. My dad used to subscribe and I read it from time to time. (He cancelled it ten to fifteen years ago)

It has been taken over by neo-cons and PNACers and is now a shameless rag, worse than Mooney Times.

I remember seeing an interview of the fricking editor of the WSJ a couple of months after Enron blew up and he BLAMED IT ON THE SOFT ECONOMY and said Ken Lay was very honest, blah blah blah.

The interviewer was aghast and moved on to other items of fantasy to discuss.

much else: their vicious campaign drove Vince Foster to his death 9 years ago. Then, not content with that, they led the rightwing lunatic chorus in questioning whether the Clintons had had Foster bumped off because "he knew too much" about the Clinton's alleged "dirty dealings." :puke:

It is only the editorial page.

WSJ is great paper but almost every news editor in America knows it's
ed-op page has been right wingnut since Bartley(now gone) took over.

Bartley was key member of Nixon administration. He was devastated by the resignation. He blamed democrats.

BARTLEY WAS VERY VERY VERY BITTER TOWARD DEMOCRATS.

far far wingnut! 1972 was the year it went over the edge and imho the anthrax came from him...his father was a veterinarian in Ames, Iowa ahem..."Ames Strain"

www.lyinginponds.com/boxscore.20020711.html


SIX MONTH REVIEW -- ROBERT L. BARTLEY: From his bio page: "Robert L. Bartley is editor and vice president of The Wall Street Journal, where he has guided editorial opinion for more than 25 years. He is responsible for the editorials, op-ed articles and the Leisure & Arts criticism and also directs the editorial pages of The Asian Wall Street Journal, The Wall Street Journal Europe and WSJ.com, the Journal's online edition. He writes the "Thinking Things Over" column, appearing each Monday on the Journal's opinion pages and on OpinionJournal. In June 2000, Mr. Bartley revived the column, a platform that had been used by three previous Journal editors and first initiated in 1936. He participates with other vice presidents in the business management of the Journal and its parent, Dow Jones & Co. . . In 1980, Mr. Bartley won a Pulitzer Prize for editorial writing. He has also received a Gerald Loeb Award and a Citation for Excellence from the Overseas Press Club of America. In 1992, his book on Reagan Administration economic policy, "The Seven Fat Years: And How To Do It Again," was published by the Free Press."

In his book, Eric Alterman does not have a high opinion of Mr. Bartley's leadership of the Wall Street Journal's editorial page: "Beginning in 1972, when the Midwestern conservative firebrand was given de facto control over the Journal's editorials (the title "editor" did not follow until 1979), they have had a harsh and unforgiving tone. Throughout the Bartley era, Journal editorials have been among the most dependable allies of the far-right elements of the Republican party on both foreign and economic issues in the entire punditocracy, going so far as to attack other journalists in advance of their published works when they fail to hew to the administration line."

Robert L. Bartley was ranked second in the Lying in Ponds Top Ten after the first six months of 2002. Perhaps serious consideration should be given to the possibility that columns by Bartley, Claudia Rosett and Brendan Miniter are actually written by the same person. The numbers for all three are eerily similar -- a 9 to 1 ratio of negative to postive Democratic references, about half of the negative Democratic references are directed toward the Clintons, and the positive Democratic references are rare and somewhat obscure. Like Ms. Rosett, Mr. Bartley's positive references to Democrats have been mostly limited to those who are safely deceased -- Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy (the only good Democrat is a . . ?). In a memorable column in April, Mr. Bartley, finding it sad to see Bill Clinton "spend his retirement nurturing grievances", graciously summarized the Clinton scandals in order to help him "achieve a measure of inner peace and historical detachment".

more..

Is Supply-Side Economics Returning?
... The Wall Street Journal's Robert Bartley, a long-time supply-sider, suggest three
criteria for a pro-growth tax cut: "Permanent, marginal and immediate.". ...
www.american-partisan.com/cols/2002/antle/qtr4/1206.htm

First of all, the reporting in the WSJ is top notch and world-class, hands down. They were the first to write about the Bush's business with the Binladens, Enron, Worldcom, the stock hyping, the illegal trading, and all of the other scandals. They focus on business, and follow the money. Turn off the TV and read the WSJ everyday, it's well worth it.

The editorial page of the WSJ is straight-up pro-corporate, pro-conservative, pro-rich people propaganda, and they don't really pretend to be anything else. I doubt half of the editorial department actually believe the bull-shite that they write, but they know their place as the official propaganda mouthpiece for Wall Street and Corporate America in general.

If you read it like that, it actually makes perfect sense, and they are very good at it.