Most sane investors know not to take anything at face value from the rabid idealogues who live in the WSJ Op-Ed section. But regardless of how you feel about the page, you gotta laugh at this comic:
Tom Toles via Yahoo!
Murdoch & the WSJ Editorial Page
July 20, 2007 3:30pm by Barry Ritholtz
This content, which contains security-related opinions and/or information, is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in any manner as professional advice, or an endorsement of any practices, products or services. There can be no guarantees or assurances that the views expressed here will be applicable for any particular facts or circumstances, and should not be relied upon in any manner. You should consult your own advisers as to legal, business, tax, and other related matters concerning any investment. The commentary in this “post” (including any related blog, podcasts, videos, and social media) reflects the personal opinions, viewpoints, and analyses of the Ritholtz Wealth Management employees providing such comments, and should not be regarded the views of Ritholtz Wealth Management LLC. or its respective affiliates or as a description of advisory services provided by Ritholtz Wealth Management or performance returns of any Ritholtz Wealth Management Investments client. References to any securities or digital assets, or performance data, are for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute an investment recommendation or offer to provide investment advisory services. Charts and graphs provided within are for informational purposes solely and should not be relied upon when making any investment decision. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The content speaks only as of the date indicated. Any projections, estimates, forecasts, targets, prospects, and/or opinions expressed in these materials are subject to change without notice and may differ or be contrary to opinions expressed by others. The Compound Media, Inc., an affiliate of Ritholtz Wealth Management, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. Investments in securities involve the risk of loss. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here: https://www.ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers Please see disclosures here: https://ritholtzwealth.com/blog-disclosures/
What's been said:
Discussions found on the web:Posted Under
Previous Post
Real Versus Nominal SPX ReturnsNext Post
The Cheapest Days to Buy Certain Items
I agree with you Barry, the WSJ op-ed page is somewhat unbalanced, same as Fox news.
the comment in the bottom right corner is the real joke…….
Ciao
MS
If you want rabid ideologues – try the investors business daily … they make WSJ look liberal by comparison
yoshi- what does ‘liberal’ mean to you?
I’ve rarely seen a more ‘rabid’ political bunch than on this blog.
Oh please, Barry. If we are going to start debating ‘biased’ editorial pages, let’s be fair and balanced and not forget the NY Times or Washington Post.
Thank God for the rational thinkers on the NYT’s editorial pages: Krugman, Dowd, Rich.
I’ve long had a tremendous respect for the competence and business-minded objectivity of the WSJ reporting staff. The reactionaries on the Op-ed page are a different matter entirely. Unfortunately, now that Murdoch is taking over, there will no longer be any difference. I cancelled my subscription two days ago, as I won’t have FOX News in my house, either on TV or in a newspaper.
Off topic, but BR the Anniversary Sale began at Nordstrom’s today. The women’s shoe section was a zoo.
People who describe those they disagree with as ‘rectionaries’ should be discounted. What’s a ‘reactionary’? Check your Althusser and your Gramsci and get back to me.
People who describe those they disagree with as ‘rectionaries’ should be discounted. What’s a ‘reactionary’? Check your Althusser and your Gramsci and get back to me.
No idea how this posted twice. My apologies.
I agree as well but I can’t help but ad the the cartoon could just as well be describing Larry Kudlow’s show…
Tom C.:
I am not sure what point you were trying to make; but “reactionary” is a well-established word in political science. It means:
A person who vehemently, often fanatically opposes progress and favors return to a previous condition: die-hard, mossback, ultraconservative.
okielawyer- The term has it’s roots in revolutionary France and was appropriated by marxist leninists and employed by them, as did the Jacobins, to tar all who disagreed with their program. A term of political opprobrium which at it’s root is almost meaningless. Kind of like ‘racist, sexist, islamaphobe or global warming denier’. Commonly employed as an ad hominem in a lame attempt to discredit any opposition among the ignorant.
The most reactionary people I know are self identified progressives.
Jesus H people its just a cartoon in the WSJ.
tia- ‘Progressives’ can’t be ‘reactionary’. It’s a term natural to the black and white world of the ‘left’. It only has meaning to them and used to end the discussion and, as in it’s original Jacobin usage, demonize any opposition in order to rationalize ‘The Terror’ and the guillotine. It’s a stupid and meaningless term.
Okielawyer, I’d guess that when somebody has been labeled a reactionary a few too many times they might want to fire off the first dismissive, ad hominem rounds for a change.
Or something like that (if I can find an old copy of The Revolution against Das Kapital somewhere I’ll check and get back to you).
The cartoon was hilarious too.
Any medium that is supplying information for the primary purpose of earning a profit is not to be trusted. That’s why blogs are popular. Most blogs have little or no competing interests because the authors’ primary purpose is to display their knowledge by sharing it with others. The blog readers are free to agree or not and there is often a means, like this comment forum, to offer dissenting views. The blog’s content is not being “sold” so there is no incentive to sensationalize.
Of course there are idealogues in the blogosphere as well. Intelligent individuals will have the ability to read information and filter out the “noise” and obtain the underlying value, if any, in the supplied information — regardless of the source, and use it for their own benefit…
Wow, lots of “labelers” here. Do any of you who choose to address others by labels really think about things? It seems to me that labeling people by groups is definitely reactionary….
I guess that’s easier than thinking about what people are actually saying, though.
Who labeled the op/ed page of the WSJ as run by ‘rabid ideologues’ and who agrees with that asessment? The ‘reactionaries’?
I think some people here are confusing the Ed page with the OP-Ed page, and are missing what the worry is for the WSJ. Pieces written with no by-line are editorial and pieces with by-lines are opinion. The former are found on the editorial page, and the latter on the op-ed (opposite the editorial). The fuss over the WSJ has nothing to do with what is written on these pages. It is about what the Editors who control content in the newspaper as a whole will tell journalists they can and can’t write.
good point tom c
The Fox News brand damage to the WSJ is going to be enormous. What a shame.
Donna makes a good point. We’re at an extremely contentious point in the country. I think there are 1/3rd of folks glued to the right, 1/3rd of the folks glued to the left, and 1/3rd of folks reacting to news and changing their minds here and there.
We know what’s going on at RedState and DailyKos, but it’s the final 1/3rd of folks we don’t hear much from.
And this day and age, who cares what is written on any Op-Ed page? Does it matter if the WSJ is owned by Murdoch? And why? Will it change the minds of the DailyKossers or RedStaters? No. Will it change the middle 1/3rd who don’t even read the Op-Eds?
The top 100 papers in America exist solely to push the agenda of the ultra elites. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or under 25(nowadays maybe under 30)
“The Fox News brand damage to the WSJ is going to be enormous.”
That is the point. Are you going to believe anything about China in the news section. Anybody that doesn’t believe that Big Rupert wants to do business and will tell the journalists to cool it on advertisers or countries.
The man already admitted he tried to use Faux Nuze to elect more republicans in the last election.
I read the WSJ for news, not propaganda. If you want to trust Murdock’s integrity that’s fine Tom. And I don’t read the Times or Post for objective investment facts and news.
“yoshi- what does ‘liberal’ mean to you?
I’ve rarely seen a more ‘rabid’ political bunch than on this blog.”
Really?
Is it the first time since the beginning of this century that you take a peek outside the confines of your cave?
Francois
“A term of political opprobrium which at it’s root is almost meaningless.”
Exactly what the term “liberal” has become! Meaningless, catch-all for those who cannot, or would not make an effort to think by themselves.
Thank you Tom C.
frankie- you’re welcome?
as a rabid idealogue, the only thing that makes me nervous about rupert buying the wsj, is that he won’t live another 30 years.
his heirs will roll over to the ankle biting of the nytimes and make the editorial page as bland, and predictable as that of the nytimes.
i just hope i’m wrong