Wash Post—new editor from WSJ!?

[Anonymous]

Good. Maybe WaPo will finally report balanced news and opinion peices rather than being some far left rag it has been for years.

Credibility restored. I think I'm going to get a subscription now that WaPo may have a more centrist view..

[Anonymous]

William Lewis is infamous for being a total jerk. Matt Murray, the real deal and a serious journalist. The combination of managerial imperialism and serious journalism has worked well for WSJ so… maybe finally the Post will up its game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you all forgotten that it was the WSJ that broke the Stormy Daniels story? Whatever you think of its editorials, their journalism is solid.

No it's not. 90% of it is propaganda from the RW garbage.

The WSJ is the only paper that can now say it broke a story that led to a felony conviction for Trump. That is opposite of right wing propaganda.

There are so many idiots that think WSJ is some sort of far right publication.. lol, it is a business news source. Of course they'll be slightly more conservative, but they're not far right...you don't have to read their OPINION peices of you don't want to.

The WSJ does some of the most fantastic investigative journalism out there. I was absolutely enthralled with their investigations into the Malaysian 1 MDB scandal. In fact, the WSJ journalist doing that story really struck a nerve because he was getting death threats while abroad. It's a fantastic news source despite what all these echo chamber clowns in the DMV say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you all forgotten that it was the WSJ that broke the Stormy Daniels story? Whatever you think of its editorials, their journalism is solid.

No it's not. 90% of it is propaganda from the RW garbage.

The WSJ is the only paper that can now say it broke a story that led to a felony conviction for Trump. That is opposite of right wing propaganda.

There are so many idiots that think WSJ is some sort of far right publication.. lol, it is a business news source. Of course they'll be slightly more conservative, but they're not far right...you don't have to read their OPINION peices of you don't want to.

The WSJ does some of the most fantastic investigative journalism out there. I was absolutely enthralled with their investigations into the Malaysian 1 MDB scandal. In fact, the WSJ journalist doing that story really struck a nerve because he was getting death threats while abroad. It's a fantastic news source despite what all these echo chamber clowns in the DMV say.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been a faithful reader for 40 years and just cancelled my subscription. Going to try NY Times. Maybe WaPo can get back on track. Maybe this editor can help.

NYT is also SJW newspaper at this point so it won’t be better.

Huh? The NYT is the newspaper of record in the United States. There's no better publication.

Pro-tip: Failing to parrot your biases doesn't make the paper "SJW."

Besides, facts have a well-known liberal bias.

This is exactly why the NYT sucks now because of arrogant people like you. Democrats are not much better at following evidence and facts and in comparison to Republicans. Most people only accept the “facts” when it is consistent with their underlying beliefs and very few people objectively evaluate things anymore. Almost everyone lives in an internet rabbit hole at this point and social media algorithms are reinforcing this ridiculous partisanship where everyone is increasingly disconnected from reality.

Evidence? Please compare the two.

[Anonymous]

WaPo's traditional beat is defense, national security, and foreign relations. They should stick to it. I feel like the AP has more scoops on national security than WaPo in recent years.

That needs to change.

WaPo editorial page was moderate conservative back in the day. But Trump overturned the apple cart and the WaPo editorial page refused to go along with Trump/MAGAs. WSJ editorial page was happy to go along with the conspiratorial MAGA wing.

[Anonymous]

The WSJ guy is only in charge through the election. Then it becomes a Daily Telegraph guy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you all forgotten that it was the WSJ that broke the Stormy Daniels story? Whatever you think of its editorials, their journalism is solid.

No it's not. 90% of it is propaganda from the RW garbage.

The WSJ is the only paper that can now say it broke a story that led to a felony conviction for Trump. That is opposite of right wing propaganda.

There are so many idiots that think WSJ is some sort of far right publication.. lol, it is a business news source. Of course they'll be slightly more conservative, but they're not far right...you don't have to read their OPINION peices of you don't want to.

The WSJ does some of the most fantastic investigative journalism out there. I was absolutely enthralled with their investigations into the Malaysian 1 MDB scandal. In fact, the WSJ journalist doing that story really struck a nerve because he was getting death threats while abroad. It's a fantastic news source despite what all these echo chamber clowns in the DMV say.

So your position is that ownership and editorial control don’t bleed into reporting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been a faithful reader for 40 years and just cancelled my subscription. Going to try NY Times. Maybe WaPo can get back on track. Maybe this editor can help.

NYT is also SJW newspaper at this point so it won’t be better.

Huh? The NYT is the newspaper of record in the United States. There's no better publication.

Pro-tip: Failing to parrot your biases doesn't make the paper "SJW."

Besides, facts have a well-known liberal bias.

This is exactly why the NYT sucks now because of arrogant people like you. Democrats are not much better at following evidence and facts and in comparison to Republicans. Most people only accept the “facts” when it is consistent with their underlying beliefs and very few people objectively evaluate things anymore. Almost everyone lives in an internet rabbit hole at this point and social media algorithms are reinforcing this ridiculous partisanship where everyone is increasingly disconnected from reality.

Evidence? Please compare the two.

Dems refused to acknowledge the lab leak theory for COVID. Now look at it ..it may be the most plausible story for the origins of covid out there.

Dems hated science because it was supposedly racist to claim that covid could have been leaked by the Chinese.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you all forgotten that it was the WSJ that broke the Stormy Daniels story? Whatever you think of its editorials, their journalism is solid.

No it's not. 90% of it is propaganda from the RW garbage.

The WSJ is the only paper that can now say it broke a story that led to a felony conviction for Trump. That is opposite of right wing propaganda.

There are so many idiots that think WSJ is some sort of far right publication.. lol, it is a business news source. Of course they'll be slightly more conservative, but they're not far right...you don't have to read their OPINION peices of you don't want to.

The WSJ does some of the most fantastic investigative journalism out there. I was absolutely enthralled with their investigations into the Malaysian 1 MDB scandal. In fact, the WSJ journalist doing that story really struck a nerve because he was getting death threats while abroad. It's a fantastic news source despite what all these echo chamber clowns in the DMV say.

Indeed. I *heartily disagree* with their right-wing political opinions, but the business and financial reporting is top notch. And since DCUM doesn't understand those fields, all they see are the political views, and they write off WSJ. Stupid of them. They could learn something.

I am not canceling my WaPo subscription. I want to see what they do. Still keeping NYT as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been a faithful reader for 40 years and just cancelled my subscription. Going to try NY Times. Maybe WaPo can get back on track. Maybe this editor can help.

NYT is also SJW newspaper at this point so it won’t be better.

Huh? The NYT is the newspaper of record in the United States. There's no better publication.

Pro-tip: Failing to parrot your biases doesn't make the paper "SJW."

Besides, facts have a well-known liberal bias.

This is exactly why the NYT sucks now because of arrogant people like you. Democrats are not much better at following evidence and facts and in comparison to Republicans. Most people only accept the “facts” when it is consistent with their underlying beliefs and very few people objectively evaluate things anymore. Almost everyone lives in an internet rabbit hole at this point and social media algorithms are reinforcing this ridiculous partisanship where everyone is increasingly disconnected from reality.

Evidence? Please compare the two.

Also, remember the HUGE S storm WaPo tried to drum up over the Catholic school boy incident in DC? WaPo ran the story before it had the facts because it for the leftist narrative that a white straight male did something bad against an oppressed minotory. Oopsie, we only found out later that the school boy didn't do anything wrong and that other groups were antagonizing him first after the full video of the incident got released. It was a huge egg on the face of the paper. The Dem reader base disregarded all facts and ate that story up like red meat because it was an opium hit for the oppression addiction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you all forgotten that it was the WSJ that broke the Stormy Daniels story? Whatever you think of its editorials, their journalism is solid.

No it's not. 90% of it is propaganda from the RW garbage.

The WSJ is the only paper that can now say it broke a story that led to a felony conviction for Trump. That is opposite of right wing propaganda.

There are so many idiots that think WSJ is some sort of far right publication.. lol, it is a business news source. Of course they'll be slightly more conservative, but they're not far right...you don't have to read their OPINION peices of you don't want to.

The WSJ does some of the most fantastic investigative journalism out there. I was absolutely enthralled with their investigations into the Malaysian 1 MDB scandal. In fact, the WSJ journalist doing that story really struck a nerve because he was getting death threats while abroad. It's a fantastic news source despite what all these echo chamber clowns in the DMV say.

Also, Theranos. John Carreyrou was a WSJ reporter when he blew the lid off of that scandal. WSJ stood by their employee and didn’t back down, even in the face of legal threats and when NO one else would touch that story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you all forgotten that it was the WSJ that broke the Stormy Daniels story? Whatever you think of its editorials, their journalism is solid.

No it's not. 90% of it is propaganda from the RW garbage.

The WSJ is the only paper that can now say it broke a story that led to a felony conviction for Trump. That is opposite of right wing propaganda.

There are so many idiots that think WSJ is some sort of far right publication.. lol, it is a business news source. Of course they'll be slightly more conservative, but they're not far right...you don't have to read their OPINION peices of you don't want to.

The WSJ does some of the most fantastic investigative journalism out there. I was absolutely enthralled with their investigations into the Malaysian 1 MDB scandal. In fact, the WSJ journalist doing that story really struck a nerve because he was getting death threats while abroad. It's a fantastic news source despite what all these echo chamber clowns in the DMV say.

Agreed. Some of this knee-jerk criticism is so juvenile. Matt Murray is good news.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been a faithful reader for 40 years and just cancelled my subscription. Going to try NY Times. Maybe WaPo can get back on track. Maybe this editor can help.

NYT is also SJW newspaper at this point so it won’t be better.

Huh? The NYT is the newspaper of record in the United States. There's no better publication.

Pro-tip: Failing to parrot your biases doesn't make the paper "SJW."

Besides, facts have a well-known liberal bias.

This is exactly why the NYT sucks now because of arrogant people like you. Democrats are not much better at following evidence and facts and in comparison to Republicans. Most people only accept the “facts” when it is consistent with their underlying beliefs and very few people objectively evaluate things anymore. Almost everyone lives in an internet rabbit hole at this point and social media algorithms are reinforcing this ridiculous partisanship where everyone is increasingly disconnected from reality.

Evidence? Please compare the two.

Dems refused to acknowledge the lab leak theory for COVID. Now look at it ..it may be the most plausible story for the origins of covid out there.

Dems hated science because it was supposedly racist to claim that covid could have been leaked by the Chinese.

Research scientist here. NO. The accidental lab leak theory cannot be proven and has just as much probability of being right as the natural zoonotic transmission (cross-species infection through close association of humans with wild animals). We do not know, and will probably never know.

The media exists to sell itself and therefore be dramatic. Of course it's going to publish all sorts of nonsense on subjects it does not understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you all forgotten that it was the WSJ that broke the Stormy Daniels story? Whatever you think of its editorials, their journalism is solid.

No it's not. 90% of it is propaganda from the RW garbage.

The WSJ is the only paper that can now say it broke a story that led to a felony conviction for Trump. That is opposite of right wing propaganda.

There are so many idiots that think WSJ is some sort of far right publication.. lol, it is a business news source. Of course they'll be slightly more conservative, but they're not far right...you don't have to read their OPINION peices of you don't want to.

The WSJ does some of the most fantastic investigative journalism out there. I was absolutely enthralled with their investigations into the Malaysian 1 MDB scandal. In fact, the WSJ journalist doing that story really struck a nerve because he was getting death threats while abroad. It's a fantastic news source despite what all these echo chamber clowns in the DMV say.

Also, Theranos. John Carreyrou was a WSJ reporter when he blew the lid off of that scandal. WSJ stood by their employee and didn’t back down, even in the face of legal threats and when NO one else would touch that story.

Yup, +1000. WSJ broke Theranos. They expose bad businesses and scams across the world. They do more for society than many other news sources.