Many of the people who read the Wall Street Journal love those articles. There are 1400 comments
I read the Journal every day. News like the Stanford study is weaponized.
They tend to do hit pieces on climate change too
Here’s a recent WSJ comment:
“ USC just replicated the Stanford study proving that the COVID death rate is 0.1% - 0.2% and the true infection rate is 50x the official numbers.
This means every model has been wrong, lockdowns were foolish, and this is a bad flu.
In light of this new information I don't understand why the narrative hasn't immediately shifted to an unconditional opening of the economy everywhere. Please, enlighten me.”
EVEN IF the rate is 0.1% this virus spreads much faster than the flu due to having no symptoms. We still need to flatten the curve to prevent overwhelming the hospitals.
The WSJ's opinion page is mindbogglingly bad. Their pro-Trump stance borders on worship, and almost every article is dedicated to either promoting Trump or defending one of his positions (in this case, lifting lockdowns).
The comment section is even worse. Breitbart-esque.
It's hard to find a consistently reliable and credible source these days. Last year I switched from an FT subscription to Bloomberg after the FT moved all the adult content (non-blog type articles from senior staff that aren't just reiterating a liberal Twitter consensus) to a much more expensive subscription level. But Bloomberg has too much content. I can barely wade through it and don't know where to start. I'm not a trader--I just want an objective, consistent, and timely eye on global political-economic happenings beyond what comes off the AP wire. sigh Maybe I should go back to the FT.
A comment from Australia's previous Prime Minister on Murdock's newspapers, who lead a government on the right https://theconversation.com/e-136746:
> News Corp “I think was well described as ‘a political organisation that employs a lot of journalists’”; The Australian “defends its friends, it attacks its enemies, it attacks its friends’ enemies, and the tabloids do the same.”
> Turnbull says his fatal flaw, according to media barons, was not that he was “too liberal” but his lack of deference and his personal wealth, because all the billionaires liked a politician who depended on them.
That last statement has all the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory - no evidence, and so appealing to the intellect.
For what it's worth, the rest of their reporting is still fairly high quality; from what I understand, newsrooms and editorial boards are entirely separate entities at most news companies.
If you're looking for deeper analysis-type articles, I would recommend The Economist--they only publish once a week, but they provide broader views on political and socioeconomic trends that daily papers lose amongst all the details. (They are owned by several rich families including the Rothschilds, though, and some of their articles have a globalist bias.)
I use the Bypass Paywalls extension[1] to read FT premium articles; the daily "US markets open higher/lower/flat on <insert post-rationalization here>" on the FT's front page does get tiring.
I like the Economist, but the Economist isn't timely. If you pick a dozen of the best political-economic reporters, especially the ones following the scholarship, aggregate their articles, and connect the threads, you've got an Economist issue 6 months to 2 years before the Economist does, except the Economist articles will elide all the messiness so that the concepts seem more definitive.
