WSJ editorial board condemns Trump lawfare

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The weaponization of the legal system by the Dems must be dealt with harshly and all those responsiblemust be held accountable to the maximum extent possible to minimize the chance of Dems becoming habitual offenders.

You're confused about cause and effect.

If Republicans weren't constantly breaking laws and committing abuses there would be nothing for the Democrats to go after. Maybe start there first before whining about Democrats trying to go after Republicans and hold them accountable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WSJ has been overall critical of Trump's admin and their reporting coverage is generally of a higher quality than Fox News. The audience, judging from reader comments, is also better informed overall. In the end, it's the economy and business leaders who will lead the correction of Trump's utterly misguided leadership and, hopefully, shatter the cult.
Reading Fox News, I weep for our country. We have a horrifyingly under educated, easily duped populace.

WSJ reporting is better than the NYTimes and WaPo in many respects. Even the editorial page. They are not big fans of Trump.

It actually makes news when the Walk Street Journal’s editorial board disagrees with Trump.

Granted I just started reading the WSJ daily a few weeks ago, but the editorial page has not been supportive of Trump, at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WSJ has been overall critical of Trump's admin and their reporting coverage is generally of a higher quality than Fox News. The audience, judging from reader comments, is also better informed overall. In the end, it's the economy and business leaders who will lead the correction of Trump's utterly misguided leadership and, hopefully, shatter the cult.
Reading Fox News, I weep for our country. We have a horrifyingly under educated, easily duped populace.

WSJ reporting is better than the NYTimes and WaPo in many respects. Even the editorial page. They are not big fans of Trump.

It actually makes news when the Walk Street Journal’s editorial board disagrees with Trump.

Granted I just started reading the WSJ daily a few weeks ago, but the editorial page has not been supportive of Trump, at all.

They historically have not been. They’re pro markets and markets don’t like volatile and stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WSJ has been overall critical of Trump's admin and their reporting coverage is generally of a higher quality than Fox News. The audience, judging from reader comments, is also better informed overall. In the end, it's the economy and business leaders who will lead the correction of Trump's utterly misguided leadership and, hopefully, shatter the cult.
Reading Fox News, I weep for our country. We have a horrifyingly under educated, easily duped populace.

WSJ reporting is better than the NYTimes and WaPo in many respects. Even the editorial page. They are not big fans of Trump.

It actually makes news when the Walk Street Journal’s editorial board disagrees with Trump.

Granted I just started reading the WSJ daily a few weeks ago, but the editorial page has not been supportive of Trump, at all.

They historically have not been. They’re pro markets and markets don’t like volatile and stupid.

They don't like volatility. Many on Wall Street do not think a realignment of global trade deficits is stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The weaponization of the legal system by the Dems must be dealt with harshly and all those responsiblemust be held accountable to the maximum extent possible to minimize the chance of Dems becoming habitual offenders.

I concur.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The weaponization of the legal system by the Dems must be dealt with harshly and all those responsiblemust be held accountable to the maximum extent possible to minimize the chance of Dems becoming habitual offenders.

I concur.

That's nice, dear. How do you feel about Trump's lawfare? Is his lawfare okay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The weaponization of the legal system by the Dems must be dealt with harshly and all those responsiblemust be held accountable to the maximum extent possible to minimize the chance of Dems becoming habitual offenders.

I concur.

That's nice, dear. How do you feel about Trump's lawfare? Is his lawfare okay?

We need to prevent Democrats from becoming repeat offenders and contribute to recidivism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WSJ has been overall critical of Trump's admin and their reporting coverage is generally of a higher quality than Fox News. The audience, judging from reader comments, is also better informed overall. In the end, it's the economy and business leaders who will lead the correction of Trump's utterly misguided leadership and, hopefully, shatter the cult.
Reading Fox News, I weep for our country. We have a horrifyingly under educated, easily duped populace.

Perhaps. But people are entitled to both their own news sources and their own opinions. You may disagree with both, but you can't ban them based on vague allegations of misinformation or disinformation.

I think the main problem is that Fox is not actually a news source but it is relied upon like one. In several defamation lawsuits, Fox’s defense has been that it is an entertainment network— not a news network— and that its reporting should not be relied upon for truth and accuracy. They’ve lost quite a few legal battles that way, tremendously expensive ones, but it gives an insight into how they see their own programming. They don’t insist on high journalism standards— why should they? They’re entertainment. But some people clearly use them as their primary or even sole news source, which is very troubling.

This is not correct. Fox argued that their opinion shows like Sean Hannity, tucker carlson, Janine Pirro and similar shows were not news but opinion/entertainment shows and not news programs. Obviously many people relied on Hannity, Carlson and so on to discuss facts and not making them up just for ratings, but Fox insists that their news portion is actually reliable news programming. And this is not even true. The day the market crashed last week it was prominent first news on any news website including wsj.com, but there was nothing NOTHING virtually all day on fox.com, just the usual female teacher sexually abuse student (if you read Fox, half of teachers in the Us must abuse their students and only the female teachers). So, even aside from the opinion part, Fox has a real news section that Fox touts as fair and balanced and reliable even though it no longer is. Even the news part now is propaganda and this explain why various long time Fox journalists left in recent times. One thing is giving news with a conservative slant, another is issuing propaganda news Pravda-style that totally hide important news of the day when they are damaging to the president or amplify the same president’ BS statements