The Wall Street Journal editor-in-chief, Robert Thomson, has today claimed the New York Times is "uncomfortable" about his paper's increasing success "while its own circulation and credibility are in retreat".
Thomson made his comments in an angry riposte at the New York Times after it published a column alleging that the paper is "tilting rightwards" and that its owner, Rupert Murdoch, uses it to "play politics".
"Principle is but a bystander at the New York Times," said Thomson, in response to a New York Times column by David Car
Sad thing is WSJ readers aren't even aware of the behind the scenes turnover since purchase by Mrdoch.
Notice that right wing organizations like Fox and WSJ and conservative bloggers are the only people using the word "climate gate"
__________________
"To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills. And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town -- a supermajority -- then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well."
You can easily tell what side a publication by who's using "jingles"
Climategate, Obamacare, etc.
I feel bad, people at work trust the WSJ and feel like it's mainstream.
Actually, my recollection is that researchers who have examined bias in news publications have found that, although the WSJ's editorial page is fairly "conservative," it's news reporting is among the most "liberal." It's an odd juxtaposition, but tends to speak well of the paper's willingness to separate their news and opinion pages, a separation that tends to be less respected at the NYT. Note, for example, that all the links provided thus far are to WSJ's opinion pages - not its news pages.
The WSJ editorialists do tend to be fairly loyal to conservative/Republican ideals, but probably no more so than the NYT is to liberal/Democratic ideals.
__________________
The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.
There are several reasons why we do not include editorials. The primary one is that there is little controversy over the slant of editorial pages—e.g. few would disagree that Wall Street Journal editorials are conservative, while New York Times editorials are liberal. However, there is a very large controversy about the slant of the news of various media outlets. A second reason involves the effect (if any) that the media have on individuals’ political views. It is reasonable to believe that a biased outlet that pretends to be centrist has more of an effect on readers’ or viewers’ beliefs than, say, an editorial page that does not pretend to be centrist. Because of this, we believe it is more important to examine the news than editorials.
Quote:
One surprise is the Wall Street Journal, which we find as the most liberal of all 20 news outlets. We should first remind readers that this estimate (as well as all other newspaper estimates) refers only to the news of the Wall Street Journal; we omitted all data that came from its editorial page. If we included data from the editorial page, surely it would appear more conservative.
Second, some anecdotal evidence agrees with our result. For instance, Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid (2001) note that “The Journal has had a long-standing separation between its conservative editorial pages and its liberal news pages.” Paul Sperry, in an article titled the “Myth of the Conservative Wall Street Journal,” notes that the news division of the Journal sometimes calls the editorial division “Nazis.” “Fact is,” Sperry writes, “the Journal’s news and editorial departments are as politically polarized as North and South Korea.”
Third, a recent poll from the Pew Research Center indicates that a greater percentage of Democrats, 29%, say they trust the Journal than do Republicans, 23%. Importantly, the question did not say “the news division at the Wall Street Journal.” If it had, Democrats surely would have said they trusted the Journal even more, and Republicans even less.
Finally, and perhaps most important, a scholarly study—by Lott and Hasset (2004)—gives evidence that is consistent with our result. As far as we are aware this is the only other study that examines the political bias of the news pages of the Wall Street Journal. Of the ten major newspapers that it examines, the study estimates the Wall Street Journal as the second-most liberal.[26] Only Newsday is more liberal, and the Journal is substantially more liberal than the New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times, and USA Today.
__________________
The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.
And I guess you find the NY Times to be completely unbiased? And NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, Time Magazine, Newsweek, etc.?
95% of the media has a left leaning bias, but love is blind. Even though Obama has the lowest approval ratings of any President 49%, in modern history.
Why is FOX News crushing the other cable news networks in the ratings? Why is the WSJ gaining readership, while other news print is bleeding readership?
I believe that the American people can descern the difference between real journalism and cheerleading.
And I guess you find the NY Times to be completely unbiased? And NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, Time Magazine, Newsweek, etc.?
95% of the media has a left leaning bias, but love is blind. Even though Obama has the lowest approval ratings of any President 49%, in modern history.
Why is FOX News crushing the other cable news networks in the ratings? Why is the WSJ gaining readership, while other news print is bleeding readership?
I believe that the American people can descern the difference between real journalism and cheerleading.
Much like Howard Stern, the fans and haters both tune in.
Why is FOX News crushing the other cable news networks in the ratings? Why is the WSJ gaining readership, while other news print is bleeding readership?
I believe that the American people can descern the difference between real journalism and cheerleading.
Very simple. Rabid conservatives make up about 28% of the population. And they flock to the conservative newspaper-the WSJ, and the conservative news network-Fox News. They flock there because they seek affirmation of their beliefs and get it in spades with Fox and the WSJ.
The rest of the population, independents and liberals, are reading a wide swath of newspapers and cable channels-such as the Post and the NYTimes for newspapers, and MSNBC and CNN and the local networks for TV news.
Liberals looking for affirmation aren't quite able to get the affirmation they seek because no network caters to liberals as blatantly as Fox caters to conservatives. MSNBC is close-but is no where near as bias as Fox. After all, MSNBC has Buchanan and Scarborough and other GOPers.
Thus liberal viewers are spread out among print media and tv news-so it appears as if Fox is "destroying" the competition.
What's funny is no liberal or moderate sees cable news as a competition, only conservatives do. It is proof that Fox is blatantly bias since consveratives LOVE it so much they cheer and trumpet when it beats other cable news channels-as if it is THEIR channel. Liberals and independents couldn't care less.
__________________
"To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills. And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town -- a supermajority -- then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well."
Very simple. Rabid conservatives make up about 28% of the population. And they flock to the conservative newspaper-the WSJ, and the conservative news network-Fox News. They flock there because they seek affirmation of their beliefs and get it in spades with Fox and the WSJ.
The rest of the population, independents and liberals, are reading a wide swath of newspapers and cable channels-such as the Post and the NYTimes for newspapers, and MSNBC and CNN and the local networks for TV news.
Liberals looking for affirmation aren't quite able to get the affirmation they seek because no network caters to liberals as blatantly as Fox caters to conservatives. MSNBC is close-but is no where near as bias as Fox. After all, MSNBC has Buchanan and Scarborough and other GOPers.
Thus liberal viewers are spread out among print media and tv news-so it appears as if Fox is "destroying" the competition.
What's funny is no liberal or moderate sees cable news as a competition, only conservatives do. It is proof that Fox is blatantly bias since consveratives LOVE it so much they cheer and trumpet when it beats other cable news channels-as if it is THEIR channel. Liberals and independents couldn't care less.
Very simple. Rabid conservatives make up about 28% of the population. And they flock to the conservative newspaper-the WSJ, and the conservative news network-Fox News. They flock there because they seek affirmation of their beliefs and get it in spades with Fox and the WSJ.
The rest of the population, independents and liberals, are reading a wide swath of newspapers and cable channels-such as the Post and the NYTimes for newspapers, and MSNBC and CNN and the local networks for TV news.
Do you have any sources for this? I don't know about "rabid", but conservatives make up 40% of Americans, according to Gallup. Liberals like to wank to the Daily Show, which is so often cited here.
Actually, my recollection is that researchers who have examined bias in news publications have found that, although the WSJ's editorial page is fairly "conservative," it's news reporting is among the most "liberal." It's an odd juxtaposition, but tends to speak well of the paper's willingness to separate their news and opinion pages, a separation that tends to be less respected at the NYT. Note, for example, that all the links provided thus far are to WSJ's opinion pages - not its news pages.
The WSJ editorialists do tend to be fairly loyal to conservative/Republican ideals, but probably no more so than the NYT is to liberal/Democratic ideals.
Sorry. It's the lowest in a Presidents 1st year. Bush was at 30%+ at his lowest. Congress was at 22%.
Obama just needs to do one thing at a time. He'll be OK.
OK, I get it.
I did some more searching and it looks like the average approval for Bush when he left office was around 31%.
I guess we'll have to stay tuned to see where Obama's approval rating will end up. I predict that the economy will rebound some, health care will be passed and his numbers will increase slightly. The polarization of the country leads me to believe that no President of either party will have approval ratings as high as Obama's after inauguration for quite some time.
One other interesting item, on Fivethirtyeight.com there was some talk about support for Health care dropping and that one large factor was Liberals who thought it didn't go far enough. I wonder if some of Obama's dropoff also comes from liberals who wanted the public option, end to fighting in Afghanistan, closure of GITMO, etc.
Last edited by philly_kid; 12-15-2009 at 07:50 PM.
If the WSJ is so far out there, how come they're not going bankrupt and talking about a bailout from the feds like the NYT? Gee, maybe it's because the "give away the content free and let the advertisers pay for it" idea is the same bogus idea from the dot-com boom and doesn't work. Let's face it, regular printed subscribers have been footing the bill for the online giveaway, and the only papers making money are the one's like the WSJ which haven't been giving their content away for free online. There are quite a lot of different perspectives presented in the Opinion pages, which are separate from the editorials, and as always most AP etc. wire stories they carry reflect the strong left leaning most AP etc. reporters; the figure is in the high 80%s in terms of liberal affiliation, folks, and the WSJ carries their pieces. But let's face it, if you're watching fox news, the daily show, any of the talking head shows, you're really not getting that much information: you can pack a whole hell of lot more words and info in a couple paragraphs than you can in a couple minutes on tv. Try reading the WSJ some time, first, before you slam it.
Last edited by nostradamamamos; 12-15-2009 at 07:54 PM.
People took him at his word. Now those same people realize that he is just a politician, who will say anything to get elected. I like the guy. I think he has much charisma and class. I also believe that he should have spent his political capital on creating jobs, rather than an illusion of saving or creating jobs.
I think Obama thinks that repairing Health Care will benefit the economy in the long run which will help with jobs. His support for stimulus which he did first, did help with unemployment. Obviously there is much more to go.
In the current political climate, it's nearly impossible to get anything done. The GOP is 100 percent committed to stopping any of his job creation initiatives (the Dems would probably do the same with a GOP president, but not have as much luck keeping everyone on board). To get the moderates for the stimulus, they had to dump some of the most likely job creating parts of the bill and keep it small. A President might want to do something, but getting it done the way he/she wants is a whole different story. Obama is a pragmatist who will take what he can get.
Health care, if and when it is passed, will give him some political capital back to work on jobs...
Not to argue, but how did stimulus help unemployment? You would do well to look past the party and actually see what's going on. Bush started us down this road and Obama is piling on.
I lifted this from the CBO:
CBO estimates that in the third quarter of calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States, and real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) was 1.2 percent to 3.2 percent higher, than would have been the case in the absence of ARRA.
What road re: Bush and Obama do you mean?
You mentioned Obama should have invested more political capital in jobs. What did you mean? In what way?
Unemployment went from 7% before stimulus to 10% after.
Bush started this bailout crap. Bush also tried a stimulus, although, it was far less money and went directly to people in the form of a check.
Obama should have made the stimulus about job creation. Instead, it was a gigantic pork bill payback to his supporters. Have you looked at where the money went? Does it concern you when our Government wastes our wealth? Both Political Parties are out for one thing....power.
I think it is possible for both: unemployment to rise and an additional .6 to 1.6 million people to be employed as a result of the stimulus.
Here is a link which shows the general spending of the stimulus. It doesn't identify the actual recipients but shows that the money went to the states for education and infrastructure, for a tax cut, unemployment payments, support for health care COBRA and other stuff. Some of this may be pork, but in my opinion the bill was not a waste of money. The fact that it added jobs despite losses elsewhere, supports my point. You are welcome to your opinion that it was a waste and can probably point to specific wasteful spending projects. On balance and given the fact that only Congress can actually spend this money, I believe it was the best he could do at the time.
NYT vs WSJ: Pot calling the kettle black.
