Murdoch WSJ (NRR)

jlee

The downfall of a (once) great paper?Will I soon be seeing Maria Bartiromo on page 6?The WSJ has always had a right leaning opinions page, but their actual news content has been arguably pretty solid and balanced. I have a feeling that in 6 years (if people are still reading papers) that the WSJ will look a lot different.

JimBeam

The downfall of a great paper?

I can't think of too many major publications that top it for journalistic integrity. The Economist, maybe, but that's only a weekly. As far as Daily majors went, the WSJ was top notch.

The WSJ has always had a left leaning opinions page, but their actual news content has been arguably pretty solid and balanced.

I don't know if I'd say that- I would argue that in the last 10 years, the WSJ op-ed contributors were really easy to spot- you knew who was on what side.

I have a feeling that in 6 years (if people are still reading papers) that the WSJ will look a lot different.

and judging by the murdoch track record, a lot worse. This move really bugged me a lot. All the majors have left now is what, the NY Times? That paper has been getting softer every day- to the extent where a left/centrist like Krugman looks like a socialist maniac by relative comparison to his colleagues.

sabadabada

The downfall of a (once) great paper?

Will I soon be seeing Maria Bartiromo on page 6?


The WSJ has always had a left leaning opinions page, but their actual news content has been arguably pretty solid and balanced. I have a feeling that in 6 years (if people are still reading papers) that the WSJ will look a lot different.

i think you mean right leaning opinion page.

jlee

The downfall of a (once) great paper?

Will I soon be seeing Maria Bartiromo on page 6?


The WSJ has always had a left leaning opinions page, but their actual news content has been arguably pretty solid and balanced. I have a feeling that in 6 years (if people are still reading papers) that the WSJ will look a lot different.

i think you mean right leaning opinion page.

yeah...definitely meant right.

sabadabada

All the majors have left now is what, the NY Times?

Not for long.




and they criticize republicans for how they run the economy?

JimBeam

All the majors have left now is what, the NY Times?

Not for long.




and they criticize republicans for how they run the economy?

i hope that's sarcasm. (If it is it's funny)
running a newspaper, which is slowly becoming a less and less relevant industry =/= running the economy. c'mon now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

sabadabada

All the majors have left now is what, the NY Times?

Not for long.




and they criticize republicans for how they run the economy?

i hope that's sarcasm. (If it is, it's funny)

running a newspaper, which is slowly becoming a less and less relevant industry =/= running the economy. c'mon now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

its more irony than sarcasm


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

sabadabada

definitely dolo,

hows your blog workin' out for you? I hope you dont pay any money to keep that ghost ship floating?

Rockadelic

I didnt pay anything to launch or maintain my hugely succesful blog. You on the otherhand are still ponying up loot to support your site which hasnt recieved an update in over a year. You paying to fail!

You sound poor.

sabadabada

I didnt pay anything to launch my huge turd[/b]. You on the otherhand are still gaining worldwide accolades[/b] for your site which was just upadated and visited by over 20,000 users last month[/b]. You a playa!

welcome back

JimBeam

And JimBeam, you swine!, krugman looks like a socialist maniac because that is exactly what he is. He may cloak his vile missives in the language of free trade and markets but, as our father said, "by their fruits ye shall know them". The result of all krugmans policy prescriptions is an exapanding state without end.

I'm sour mash, but swine? ok...
(although a touch melodramatic for my taste.)

The statement was about the softening of the rest of the op-ed staff in comparison to Krugman, but you can dolo it all up if you want to.
LOL at "expanding state without end." Thatcherism, much? I know, I know, "The Road to Serfdom" is a decent and mildly engaging read the first time around- but the logic behind it is a slippery slope, implicitly classist, and should be disregarded as such.
Market theory is about as base as you can get- so it's hard to "cloak" anything behind it. I'm not going to come out in support of everything Krugman has ever written, but the "HE ADVOCATES GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF MY BEDTIME, ETC!!" argument is pretty tepid, and not one I choose to engage.
I do applaud your use of adjectives though. "Vile" is a word you just don't read enough these days...

JimBeam

All the majors have left now is what, the NY Times?

Not for long.




and they criticize republicans for how they run the economy?

i hope that's sarcasm. (If it is, it's funny)

running a newspaper, which is slowly becoming a less and less relevant industry =/= running the economy. c'mon now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

its more irony than sarcasm


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

ZING!
Now see, I would label that a "coincidence", but you skillfully painted it a bit differently. And I laughed.

sabadabada

And I laughed.

my work here is done.

keithvanhorn

Murdoch has aquired a number of prestige papers in the past and he has never interfered with their output(see the times of london and the australian).

yea, just look at the great work he has done with the new york post.

sabadabada

Murdoch has aquired a number of prestige papers in the past and he has never interfered with their output(see the times of london and the australian).

yea, just look at the great work he has done with the new york post.

the post was the way it is long before murdoch came along and you know it. why do you make points that you know are false?

sabadabada

And JimBeam, you swine!, krugman looks like a socialist maniac because that is exactly what he is. He may cloak his vile missives in the language of free trade and markets but, as our father said, "by their fruits ye shall know them". The result of all krugmans policy prescriptions is an exapanding state without end.

I'm sour mash, but swine? ok...

(although a touch melodramatic for my taste.)

The statement was about the softening of the rest of the op-ed staff in comparison to Krugman, but you can dolo it all up if you want to.
LOL at "expanding state without end." Thatcherism, much? I know, I know, "The Road to Serfdom" is a decent and mildly engaging read the first time around- but the logic behind it is a slippery slope, implicitly classist, and should be disregarded as such.
Market theory is about as base as you can get- so it's hard to "cloak" anything behind it. I'm not going to come out in support of everything Krugman has ever written, but the "HE ADVOCATES GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF MY BEDTIME, ETC!!" argument is pretty tepid, and not one I choose to engage.
I do applaud your use of adjectives though. "Vile" is a word you just don't read enough these days...

The wealth of nations, regarded as the genesis of free market economics proper, itself came in 5 volumes and there are no means by which to measure how much has been written of economics in the hundreds of years since. The idea that market theory is too base for its terminology to be effectively stolen and perverted is clearly wrong, fork tounged socialists have long done such. kenyes vulgar call for de facto socialism in the general theory was hailed as having 'saved capitalism' even as that work defamed it and the implimentation of its recomendations almost succeded in destroying it completely.

Today it still goes on. Neo-classical economics, which a recent a new work times article ludicrously alleged to be the preserve of free market fundamentalists, is awash with intellectually bankrupt theories such as 'market failure' and 'monopsony power' whose only purpose is to add a thin veneer of credibility to the arbitrary infringements upon the individual by the state.

So in summary JimBeam you and your comrade krugman are both scum.

Did you have to agree to stop posting in your dumb blog in order to be let back in here? Or, did it just die under the weight of its own "excrement" (to coin a phrase)?

JimBeam

kenyes (sic, c'mon- at least spell his name right)[/b] vulgar call for de facto socialism in the general theory was hailed as having 'saved capitalism' even as that work defamed it and the implimentation of its recomendations almost succeded in destroying it completely.

Today it still goes on. Neo-classical economics, which a recent a new work times article ludicrously alleged to be the preserve of free market fundamentalists, is awash with intellectually bankrupt theories such as 'market failure' and 'monopsony power' whose only purpose is to add a thin veneer of credibility to the arbitrary infringements upon the individual by the state.

Wow. Your schtick is much more believable if you keep it toned down. The art of schtick comedy is not letting people know whether or not it's a schtick or your actual personality. You should practice more before you post so much.

sabadabada

Did you have to agree to stop posting in your dumb blog in order to be let back in here? Or, did it just die under the weight of its own "excrement" (to coin a phrase)?

I finished my blog because nobody read it[/b]

keithvanhorn

Murdoch has aquired a number of prestige papers in the past and he has never interfered with their output(see the times of london and the australian).

yea, just look at the great work he has done with the new york post.

the post was the way it is long before murdoch came along and you know it.

wrong!!


before he bought it, the post was a real newspaper and run by liberals. now its like a combo of fox news, the E channel, and the National Inquirer.

JimBeam

kenyes (sic, c'mon- at least spell his name right)[/b] vulgar call for de facto socialism in the general theory was hailed as having 'saved capitalism' even as that work defamed it and the implimentation of its recomendations almost succeded in destroying it completely.

Today it still goes on. Neo-classical economics, which a recent a new work times article ludicrously alleged to be the preserve of free market fundamentalists, is awash with intellectually bankrupt theories such as 'market failure' and 'monopsony power' whose only purpose is to add a thin veneer of credibility to the arbitrary infringements upon the individual by the state.

Wow. Your schtick is much more believable if you keep it toned down. The art of schtick comedy is not letting people know whether or not it's a schtick or your actual personality. You should practice more before you post so much.

Just fall back. Its clear that you are not on my intellectual level.

yeah. I'm more of a "spell things right" type of guy.

sabadabada

Murdoch has aquired a number of prestige papers in the past and he has never interfered with their output(see the times of london and the australian).

yea, just look at the great work he has done with the new york post.

the post was the way it is long before murdoch came along and you know it.

wrong!!


before he bought it, the post was a real newspaper and run by liberals. now its like a combo of fox news, the E channel, and the National Inquirer.

it may have once been more liberal, but it was always a sensationalist rag, unless you are rememberring back to like 1919, and i dont think you are that old.

sabadabada

And this is the year I only updated 5 times. Its the quality the work involved, not the quantity.




Summary by Month 2006-07

Month Daily Avg Monthly Totals


Hits Files Pages Visits[/b] Sites KBytes Visits Pages Files Hits

Aug 2007 580 414 59 50 85 16507 50 59 414 580
Jul 2007 7678 6373 596 339 12160 5596941 10539[/b] 18480 197593 238037
Jun 2007 10259 8134 854 423 12434 29881840 12708[/b] 25646 244022 307770
May 2007 8160 6247 765 356 15088 169949831 11040[/b] 23733 193664 252979
Apr 2007 8904 6951 766 348 13804 177027973 10450[/b] 22982 208551 267124
Mar 2007 6038 4849 672 305 11014 116539906 9461[/b] 20845 150330 187197
Feb 2007 8517 6901 889 398 11490 162204589 11148[/b] 24902 193229 238493
Jan 2007 11260 8397 1024 437 14611 215655357 13558[/b] 31760 260314 349085
Dec 2006 11010 8330 980 437 15160 150961442 13555[/b] 30399 258234 341319
Nov 2006 12513 9736 1058 447 16627 131325039 13411[/b] 31769 292108 375390
Oct 2006 9140 7132 950 429 16249 121450759 13307[/b] 29458 221103 283360
Sep 2006 8863 7341 875 421 15728 107889684 12643[/b] 26264 220252 265897

Totals 1388499869 131870[/b] 286297 2439814 3107231




Now, go ahead now, and post up some number you pull out of your ass, cause i know i just crushed you.

sabadabada

Rockadelic

^proof that those statistics are faker than Dolo's supposed record collection.

sabadabada

requested screenshot of my unbelievable website statistics that are so remarkable, some are paralyzed in disbelief.


http://rapidshare.com/files/46374723/clip_image002.jpg



i cant host the image myself right now, cause that computer is at home. I am wealthy enough to own several.

sabadabada

The world waits.

sabadabada

^proof that those statistics are faker than rockaedlics teeth. I got over 10,000 unique hits in my first week. Your little turd stain cannot measure up.

P.S. I got picked up by boingboing in my first week (almost three years ago) and had over 50,000 visits that week.

sabadabada

cause administrator link is on my computer at work, but the link to upload things to the site and my instructions are on my other computer.

thats right dolo bird, i manage to create these stunning statistics despite my obvious lack of computer knowlege. it is equal parts great taste in music and personal will power.






we are all still waiting for you to show us your little baby wrinkle dick numbers.

troubleman

we are all still waiting for you to show us your little baby wrinkle dick numbers.

he won't. He'll just keep talking shit, and accusing you of fudging the numbers. He's so damn predictable.

Unherd

this thread is like the right wing douche world series....

Keith, maybe Im buggin but did you actually try to have a serious conversation in here? Can't you see there's a dick measuring contest going on?

motown67

I've heard that Murdoch has inteferred with his papers for his business interests.

Don't remember the specifics, but he was trying to cut a deal with China and told one of his newspapers to cut any negative reporting about the country until the contracts were signed and hands were shaken.