Anyone notice changes in the Wall Street Journal since the big M took over? Seems Murdoch is turning this once great paper into the financial version of the post/enquirer. Front page article about the French and G-Strings. Also front page a Democrat/Hillary witch hunt about raising cash. C'mon Murdoch wheres the Idaho senator scandal? The last part of the paper called personal journal is about 80% ads with "special advertising " written in font that brings new meaning to the word small. Up to all the same old tricks. Sure do miss the ole -less profitable- journal. FInancial Times here I come....
Hey Idiot, Front page article is a general interest story about the French sport, Pétanque. The person mentioned in the story happens to sell G-Strings in addition to other things. If you are criticizing Murdoch for biases and propaganda, well you are using those precise tactics to do so. The Journal always has investigative front page stories, I've been reading it for 10 years and the Murdoch take-over hasn't changed anything - yet. The Financial Times is a niche paper targeted at financial professionals while the WSJ is a mass market paper with a business focus. Murdoch plans to capitalize on this by include more non-business related world news and expanding the brand name into other distribution mediums such as TV. People like you piss me off..
The Idaho senator story NEVER happened. Got it? It didn't happen. Nothing to see here, please move along. On the other hand, I welcome our French G-String wearing leaders, that story helped me make some great investment decisions. And Hillary is now the first and only politician in history to take money from questionable sources. Jack Abramoff did not exist. Got that?
The Wall Street Journal has been printing more and more silly articles. I was reading an article (don't remember where) about the feminization of the WSJ. Small pages. More articles on fashion. Not what is used to be....
I'm not going to resort to calling you ignorant and biased because name calling on message boards is so easy and a waste of time. The WSJ is in fact changing since Murdoch took it over. You said 'the person in the story happens to sell G-Strings'. You missed the point guy. Ever read the Post? Murdoch uses this kind of hook to lure in the masses and sell papers. Point is Murdoch has an agenda and it's not to bring you an unbiased story. Before replying to this message with more name calling might I suggest looking at a WSJ from a year ago, maybe it will bring some things to light. Perhaps you're just looking for a good message board fight, in that case I'm not really interested. nothing to get emotional about just the facts....
The WSJ was "re formated" in the beginning of this year. I wrote a thread about it. The paper has been going down hill for awhile IMO. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83734
LOL - and I'm seeing hours of Ida-ho, You-da-ho on TV. What ever happened to Abramoff anyway? I have read the WSJ for a long time, and I too am concerned about bias. I don't mind blatant bias from either side, as long as you know what you're getting. Fox vs. MSNBC is fine, we know which way the wind blows with them. CNN could be neutral, and they do bring on people from both sides, but it still boils down to how they report the news, not just the news itself. Are there any decent news reporting agencies left? AP? Everyone seems to lean so far in one direction that they start to construe any alternative statement as bias to the other side, oh well. c