Wall Street Journal article by Liz Cheney It seems to me that ever since the buyout, the paper has had more articles that lean more and more to the right. Now I didn't read the WSJ often before but I don't remember reading articles with such an overbearing political overtone. Was the WSJ balanced or neutral in their opinion pieces or just about finances? What's the counter-newspaper to the WSJ? Is there a counter-newspaper to the WSJ?

Um, our leadership ws just as crazy and ideological as the Soviet's was, and about as moral. What a retarded opinion piece.

Turned into? No. Become more overt sure, but they're the Wall Street Journal for god's sake. They represent money, and money is Republican.

Also, never forget that the very nature of news tends toward both liberal and extreme natures.

News articles about mainstream or moderately conservative actions and views are rarely noted in news. You see news articles of the form "Senator Foo claims we should nuke Iraq" because it sells papers, without noting that the other 99 senators think it is a stupid idea.

Sensational headlines sell papers. Mainstream and traditional (read:moderately conservative) news articles do not.

It is just another sensational story, designed to stir up argument and discussion.

Quote: Original post by Promit
Turned into? No. Become more overt sure, but they're the Wall Street Journal for god's sake. They represent money, and money is Republican.

The USA is a republic.

Quote: Original post by magic_man

Quote: Original post by Promit
Turned into? No. Become more overt sure, but they're the Wall Street Journal for god's sake. They represent money, and money is Republican.

The USA is a republic.

And? "Republican" has nothing to do with being a republic.

Quote: Original post by Promit
And? "Republican" has nothing to do with being a republic.

Well I assume you know more about American politics than me, but it seems strange to me that you have a Republican Party and a Democratic Party yet they have nothing to do with republic and democracy.

Quote: Original post by magic_man

Quote: Original post by Promit
And? "Republican" has nothing to do with being a republic.

Well I assume you know more about American politics than me, but it seems strange to me that you have a Republican Party and a Democratic Party yet they have nothing to do with republic and democracy.

Shhh! It's a secret.

Quote: Original post by magic_man

Quote: Original post by Promit
And? "Republican" has nothing to do with being a republic.

Well I assume you know more about American politics than me, but it seems strange to me that you have a Republican Party and a Democratic Party yet they have nothing to do with republic and democracy.

It's kind of confusing isn't it. Both parties are for the idea of a republic and they both support democracy. The names of the parties are just names. You have to look at their ideologies to figure out what they stand for.

Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
Wall Street Journal article by Liz Cheney

It seems to me that ever since the buyout, the paper has had more articles that lean more and more to the right. Now I didn't read the WSJ often before but I don't remember reading articles with such an overbearing political overtone.

Was the WSJ balanced or neutral in their opinion pieces or just about finances? What's the counter-newspaper to the WSJ? Is there a counter-newspaper to the WSJ?

The WSJ opinion pages have always been extremely right wing, from long before Murdoch bought the paper. It was fairly typical to find op-eds on their pages touting facts that the reporting from the paper contradicted. If you dig about you should be able to find comments by Noam Chomsky on this very subject. When Murdoch bought the paper there was some concern that the bias from the op-ed page would creep into the reporting, which has long been considered excellent even by people who detested the op-ed page. Given the well known bias of the WSJ op-ed page, I was surprised when they hired Thomas Frank (author of What's the Matter with Kansas). I guess Murdoch figured that if the NYT can publish a few token conservative op-eds, then the WSJ can publish a few token liberal op-eds.

Liz Cheney is a real piece of work, just like her old man. Considering the big news over the weekend - that Dick ordered the CIA to lie to Congress about a covert assassination program - I'm not surprised they published her op-ed. I expect to see her making the cable news rounds to defend her old man one more time. She'll be on Fox, no doubt, but Wolf Blitzer will give her time to kill, David Gregory will too most likely. On the other hand, the Sotomayor hearings might suck all the air out of the rest of the news.

On the flip side of Liz Cheney's screed, Peggy Noonan's most recent op-ed in the WSJ destroys Sarah Palin: A Farewell to Harms: Palin was bad for the Republicans—and the republic.

Quote:
...
McCain-Palin lost. Mrs. Palin has now stepped down, but she continues to poll high among some members of the Republican base, some of whom have taken to telling themselves Palin myths.

To wit, "I love her because she's so working-class." This is a favorite of some party intellectuals. She is not working class, never was, and even she, avid claimer of advantage that she is, never claimed to be and just lets others say it. Her father was a teacher and school track coach, her mother the school secretary. They were middle-class figures of respect, stability and local status. I think intellectuals call her working-class because they see the makeup, the hair, the heels and the sleds and think they're working class "tropes." Because, you know, that's what they teach in "Ways of the Working Class" at Yale and Dartmouth.
...
"The elites hate her." The elites made her. It was the elites of the party, the McCain campaign and the conservative media that picked her and pushed her. The base barely knew who she was. It was the elites, from party operatives to public intellectuals, who advanced her and attacked those who said she lacked heft. She is a complete elite confection. She might as well have been a bonbon.

"She makes the Republican Party look inclusive." She makes the party look stupid, a party of the easily manipulated.

"She shows our ingenuous interest in all classes." She shows your cynicism.

"Now she can prepare herself for higher office by studying up, reading in, boning up on the issues." Mrs. Palin's supporters have been ordering her to spend the next two years reflecting and pondering. But she is a ponder-free zone. She can memorize the names of the presidents of Pakistan, but she is not going to be able to know how to think about Pakistan. Why do her supporters not see this? Maybe they think "not thoughtful" is a working-class trope!

"The media did her in." Her lack of any appropriate modesty did her in. Actually, it's arguable that membership in the self-esteem generation harmed her. For 30 years the self-esteem movement told the young they're perfect in every way. It's yielding something new in history: an entire generation with no proper sense of inadequacy.
...

Zing! I put those parts in bold. Noonan wrote speeches for Ronald Reagan and then went to work for the WSJ. Her conservative bona fides are in order. Her op-ed is prime refutation for complaints that the "liberal" media criticism did in Palin's political career. The truth is that Palin received heavy criticism from conservatives too - Brooks, Krauthammer and others. Her resignation smacks of Nixon's "retirement" speech after losing the California governors election in 1962. "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore." He said. Six years later he ran for President and won (granted LBJ bailed and RFK was killed). Palin is barely a third rate Nixon, but she's not going quietly into obscurity.