"We've been gratified this week by the outpouring of support from readers after some 280 of our Wall Street Journal colleagues signed (and someone leaked) a letter to our publisher criticizing the opinion pages."
280 peer critics from the same paper? Wowser! But why not? Especially when one reads some of the recent codswallop consuming its op -ed pages - which those 280 other contributors (to the Journal's main sections)- had to know is chucked full of garbage. Crap like:
'America Isn't A Racist Country' (July 23-25, p. A11)
'You're More Likely To Catch Covid at Home Than In Jail' (Ibid.)
'No More Blank Checks From Congress For Coronavirus' - July 24, p. A15
Oh, and Holman Jenkins' Jr's typical baloney (p.A13) wherein he barks:
"We shouldn't let labels confuse our understanding: The virus was never locked down. Certain business and social gatherings were banned but human beings were as free as ever to spread the disease"
And earlier (July 24, p. A 15, 'The Unasked FBI Question:Why?) spouting:
"The latest news? Christopher Steele is revealed more than ever to be a fabulous fraud - or a practiced spy practicing his penchant for disinformation."
In your dreams, sonny. In fact, the likes of you aren't fit to spit shine Mr. Steele's shoes. But dreck like this is exactly why the Journal's 280 serious scribes saw fit to call out the Foxite clowns and propaganda pushers in its op-ed pages. Of course, the clowns try to make it appear they are taking the high road, i.e. (ibid.):
"In the spirit of collegiality we won't respond in kind to the letter signers. Their anxieties aren't our responsibility in any case."
Hmmm....but it seems neither has the truth or facts been your responsibility. Which these cheese balls admit when they go on to scribble:
"The signers report to the News editors and the Opinion Departments operate with separate staff... This separation allows us to pursue stories and inform readers with independent judgment."
Translation: These disinfo dweezils can dream up whatever spin on the fact they wish, and put it out as if as valid as what appears on the main news pages. A dichotomy I have often referenced. It also stands to reason the PR spinners and fake news purveyors would take umbrage with the 280 who deal in facts, as the editorial goes on to squawk:
"It was probably inevitable that the wave of progressive cancel culture would arrive at the Journal, as it has nearly every other cultural, business, academic and journalistic institution."
Which is simply sour grapes, as I also pointed out with former NY Times contributor Bari Weiss who left in a huff e.g.
Don't Waste Your Time Feeling Sorry For Bari Weiss...
Believing in her twisted little heart that "left wing cancel culture" caused her to depart. Not so, as I wrote in the post, she simply believed she was too high and mighty to take feedback ('blowback'?) from online media sites like Twitter.
More evidence of how the WSJ op-ed denizens admit to slanting the facts toward their ideology:
"Most Journal reporters aim to cover the news fairly and down the middle - but our opinion pages offer an alternative the uniform progressive views that dominate nearly all of today's media."
But what they left out is admitting they're tired of the journal's own "fair and down the middle" brand of reporting. Look! It's in their own words. So they admit to a desire to skew perceptions and fact, well - I guess they fancy propaganda more than adherence to "down the middle" coverage.
The WSJ wise guys the zombie readers who gravitate to their skewed fare that they have no intent to change,
"So long as our proprietors (e.g. Rupert Murdoch - my insertion) allow us to do so.
The WSJ editorial bozos then have the gall to finish off their spiel by asserting:
"These columns will continue to promote the principles of free people and free markets which are more important than ever in a culture of growing progressive conformity and intolerance"
Blatantly leaving blank why they also feel compelled to diverge from all their WSJ colleagues and their "down the middle" reporting. Is it not possible for these editorial nabobs to offer opinions in their editorials that are consistent with what their 280 peers report?
Evidently not. It's more important to them that their attention to "free markets and free people" also include a huge dose of unhinged, free twaddle.
See Also:
No comments:
Post a Comment