Liberal Forum

thelion » 17 Feb 2014 10:06 pm » wrote:
Nope. Used to, though. Right up to 2008, when it became obvious that Rupert's poison had destroyed the WSJ's journalism and reduced them to propaganda.

golfboy » 17 Feb 2014 3:18 pm » wrote:Off topic spam.

AmazonTania » 17 Feb 2014 9:58 pm » wrote:
You don't have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal, do you?

You'd be very surprised who writes for it, that is, if you bothered to pay the $22.26 a month for it.

AmazonTania » 17 Feb 2014 10:08 pm » wrote: With additions to some new staffing, the same journalist have written for the WSJ for years, probably decades.

At this point, I'm convinced you're probably making this up.

RichClem » 17 Feb 2014 3:50 pm » wrote:
Amazing that an ignorant imbecile would give so much weight to her own worthless opinion.

Hey moonbat, why do publications like the WSJ, IBD and Forbes sell?

onlyaladd » 17 Feb 2014 10:15 pm » wrote: Why would you pay for what you have to know is propaganda?

thelion » 17 Feb 2014 10:21 pm » wrote:
Deny the reality of the WSJ's history and Rupert's record of ousting anyone (against his own promises) who opposed his shredding of journalistic integrity.

Denying reality is what Cons are best at.

AmazonTania » 17 Feb 2014 10:08 pm » wrote:
With additions to some new staffing, the same journalist have written for the WSJ for years, probably decades.

At this point, I'm convinced you're probably making this up.

bingster » 17 Feb 2014 10:11 pm » wrote:
Wow, good job dropping the "off topic spam" and just saying "off topic span". You're maturing. You should feel good about yourself.

AmazonTania » 17 Feb 2014 10:22 pm » wrote:
The WSJ is one of the oldest publications for economic, market and financial analysis and information, referenced in many scholarly databases. You're going to have a difficult time convincing intellectual thinking people that one of the most used financial sources is propaganda.

Or perhaps you're basing your perception on what you believe about the WSJ from the sections they let you read for free...

The Journal Becomes Fox-ified.
Within five months, Murdoch had fired the editor and installed his close friend Robert Thomson, fresh from a stint Fox-ifying The Times of London. The new publisher was Leslie Hinton, former boss of the division that published ’s British newspapers, including The News of the World. (He resigned on Friday.) Soon came the changes, swift and sure: shorter articles, less depth, an increased emphasis on politics and, weirdly, sometimes surprisingly unsophisticated coverage of business.

Along with the transformation of a great paper into a mediocre one came a change that was both more subtle and more insidious. The political articles grew more and more slanted toward the Republican party line. The Journal sometimes took to using the word “Democrat” as an adjective instead of a noun, a usage favored by the right wing. In her book, “War at The Wall Street Journal,” Sarah Ellison recounts how editors inserted the phrase “assault on business” in an article about corporate taxes under President Obama. The Journal was turned into a propaganda vehicle for its owner’s conservative views. That’s half the definition of Fox-ification

On Friday, however, the coverage went all the way to craven. The paper published an interview with Murdoch that might as well have been dictated by the News Corporation public relations department.

greatnpowerfuloz » 17 Feb 2014 4:44 pm » wrote: I can attest to the fact that we both read it religiously while enjoying a post-coital cigarette.

Any more questions about our personal life, pervert?

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 7:26 am » wrote:
Another liberal melts down into ignorance, evasions and bulls***.

Congrats on fitting the stereotype.

Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2014 4:54 pm » wrote:I wonder if that retarded, harrumphing *** has taken any note of the poll? The score is currently 100% against his position, in favor of mine.

On a board where people sling competing talking points ad nauseam, clemtard attacked me for the SPECIFIC FAUX PAS of posting my own opinions, without googling any talking points to back them up.

I ggogled the phrase "Carter economy better than reagan" and I was the [flash] second[/flash] NOW FIRST! link. https://www.google.com/#q=carter+econom ... han+reagan

I have been pilloried for being original.

Brattle Street » 18 Feb 2014 7:22 am » wrote:WSJ Propaganda Vehicle Foxified

Rupert Murdoch has been busy sullying the Wall Street Journal news department's once impeccable reputation for objectivity. Murdoch made his buddy Robert Thomson the new WSJ editor and made Leslie Hinton the publisher who proceeded to "Fox-ify" the Journal as Joe Nocera described it in his blistering OpEd in the New York Times. Nocera describes the changes at the WSJ like this: Nocera also writes about the softball interview the Journal editors conducted with Murdoch where the thorniest questions were not asked.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/1 ... tive-views#

greatnpowerfuloz » 17 Feb 2014 5:56 pm » wrote:

And all without ever once providing evidence of the deceit and lies. Which is truly remarkable as I can and have cited those deceit and lies on numerous occasions with none of the obsessive need to do so, which you possess.

Why have you failed so miserably to provide the same evidence, I as a liberal, have provided?

All of your sources are opinions. You've admitted this and have stood behind it proudly.

So what? The use of logic

The entire **** world knows that opinions are like assholes. Everyone has them. You seem to be in touch with more assholes than I. What does that say about you?

Does it make you better than me because you've been intimate with a greater number of assholes in your lifetime than I?

I'm a magnanimous soul. I will give you credit for that accomplishment.

thelion » 17 Feb 2014 10:06 pm » wrote: Nope. Used to, though. Right up to 2008, when it became obvious that Rupert's poison had destroyed the WSJ's journalism and reduced them to propaganda.

bingster » 17 Feb 2014 10:11 pm » wrote:
Wow, good job dropping the "off topic spam" and just saying "off topic span". You're maturing. You should feel good about yourself.

onlyaladd » 17 Feb 2014 10:15 pm » wrote: Why would you pay for what you have to know is propaganda?

golfboy » 18 Feb 2014 7:46 am » wrote: You claim the WSJ is propaganda, but the NY Times, is NOT?