Why you need to read the Wall Street Journal

Dec 2018
3,864
1,107
New England
For over two years now the WSJ, IMO, has been about the only objective national news source for Trump coverage, both the good and the bad.

Case in point, their coverage of what AG Barr is going through right now and what it means. From Kim Strassel's most recent column:

... Some of this is frustration. Democrats foolishly invested two years of political capital in the idea that Mr. Mueller would prove President Trump had colluded with Russia, and Mr. Mueller left them empty-handed ... But most of it is likely fear. Mr. Barr made real news in that Senate hearing, and while the press didn’t notice, Democrats did. The attorney general said he’d already assigned people at the Justice Department to assist his investigation of the origins of the Trump-Russia probe. He said his review would be far-reaching—that he was obtaining details from congressional investigations, from the ongoing probe by the department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, and even from Mr. Mueller’s work. Mr. Barr said the investigation wouldn’t focus only on the fall 2016 justifications for secret surveillance warrants against Trump team members but would go back months earlier.
He also said he’d focus on the infamous “dossier” concocted by opposition-research firm Fusion GPS and British former spy Christopher Steele, on which the FBI relied so heavily in its probe. Mr. Barr acknowledged his concern that the dossier itself could be Russian disinformation, a possibility he described as not “entirely speculative.” He also revealed that the department has “multiple criminal leak investigations under way” into the disclosure of classified details about the Trump-Russia investigation ... Do not underestimate how many powerful people in Washington have something to lose from Mr. Barr’s probe. Among them: Former and current leaders of the law-enforcement and intelligence communities. The Democratic Party pooh-bahs who paid a foreign national (Mr. Steele) to collect information from Russians and deliver it to the FBI. The government officials who misused their positions to target a presidential campaign. The leakers. The media. More than reputations are at risk. Revelations could lead to lawsuits, formal disciplinary actions, lost jobs, even criminal prosecution.
The attacks on Mr. Barr are first and foremost an effort to force him out, to prevent this information from coming to light until Democrats can retake the White House in 2020. As a fallback, the coordinated campaign works as a pre-emptive smear, diminishing the credibility of his ultimate findings by priming the public to view him as a partisan. ... “We have to stop using the criminal-justice process as a political weapon,” Mr. Barr said Wednesday. The line didn’t get much notice, but that worthy goal increasingly looks to be a reason Mr. Barr accepted this unpleasant job. Stopping this abuse requires understanding how it started. The liberal establishment, including journalists friendly with it, doesn’t want that to happen, and so has made it a mission to destroy Mr. Barr. The attorney general seems to know what he’s up against, and remains undeterred. That’s the sort of steely will necessary to right the ship at the Justice Department and the FBI.


Full article here (paywall): Opinion | For Fear of William Barr
 
Jun 2018
6,173
1,426
South Dakota
This is an accurate assessment of the conditions that exist today. Barr took the job to do exactly what he's doing now, drain the swamp. Prior AGs have been hired to do similar functions directly for the sitting President. Two most prominent are RFK and Eric Holder.
Reinforces the idea that the MSM and Dems need constant stream of negatives against Trump. The MSM because their rating hit the porcelain facility in a rush when the noise level goes down and the Dems because they're getting increasingly desperate to unseat Trump. Testimony of that is the way the flock of libs here act when there's nothing happening. Thye constantly post little echo chamber threads to keep the illuson going that there's something world shaking to discuss.
 
Dec 2018
1,958
1,179
Unionville Indiana
For over two years now the WSJ, IMO, has been about the only objective national news source for Trump coverage, both the good and the bad. Case in point, their coverage of what AG Barr is going through right now and what it means. ...
"Objective"? The column is an opinion piece by an opinion columnist. LOL
 
Dec 2018
3,864
1,107
New England
This is an accurate assessment of the conditions that exist today. Barr took the job to do exactly what he's doing now, drain the swamp. Prior AGs have been hired to do similar functions directly for the sitting President. Two most prominent are RFK and Eric Holder.
Reinforces the idea that the MSM and Dems need constant stream of negatives against Trump. The MSM because their rating hit the porcelain facility in a rush when the noise level goes down and the Dems because they're getting increasingly desperate to unseat Trump. Testimony of that is the way the flock of libs here act when there's nothing happening. Thye constantly post little echo chamber threads to keep the illuson going that there's something world shaking to discuss.

... and as other WSJ op ed pieces have pointed out, Barr didn't duck and cover the way Loretta Lynch did. Barr took the results of the investigation, stood up in front the press, and said "no crime here." Lynch stayed in the shadows and allowed Comey to make the public statements on the Clinton investigation.
 
Jun 2018
6,173
1,426
South Dakota
Op ed = opinion editorial. It's Orwellian to claim that they are "objective" sources of news.
Flawed. You assume that opinion is based on bias for the purpose of projecting a scenario not based in fact. Not true. Opinion can be just as objective as it can be subjective.
 
Dec 2018
1,958
1,179
Unionville Indiana
Flawed. You assume that opinion is based on bias for the purpose of projecting a scenario not based in fact. Not true. Opinion can be just as objective as it can be subjective.
So says someone who has opinions in agreement with the Wall Street Journal opinion-editorial board. Weak sauce (circular reasoning), click.
 

RNG

Apr 2013
38,635
26,619
La La Land North
WSJ is rated by MediaBiasFactCheck as being Right-Center, which is fine, but I was surprised to read that they rate its factual reporting as mixed.
 
Dec 2018
1,958
1,179
Unionville Indiana
WSJ is rated by MediaBiasFactCheck as being Right-Center, which is fine, but I was surprised to read that they rate its factual reporting as mixed.
And as you may know, the WSJ is now controlled by none other than...Rupert Murdoch, founder of FoxNews.
 
May 2018
4,408
3,384
USA
I'd never label a newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch as "objective". The WSJ is good for stock research, and not a whole lot more. Their opinion pieces are often ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rescue Basket