WSJ Jumps the Shark
ritholtz.com
WSJ Jumps the Shark
1–10 of 71 posts
Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark
#2The article boils down to one thing: "Obama is floating a bill the author likes. The general consensus is that the reason the market is down is BECAUSE of Obama's bill. The WSJ dares to report that the market is down BECAUSE of Obama's bill. Therefore the WSJ is are a bunch of no-good right-wing authoritarian fascists, and I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and pretend that they don't exist".
Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark
#3It's not like there are alternatives. The Times has let blatant editorializing sneak onto the front page and throughout every section for as long as I've been reading it, and its the paper of record. Read The Economist.
Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark
#4The article boils down to one thing: "Obama is floating a bill the author likes. The general consensus is that the reason the market is down is BECAUSE of Obama's bill. The WSJ dares to report that the market is down BECAUSE of Obama's bill. Therefore the WSJ is are a bunch of no-good right-wing authoritarian fascists, and I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and pretend that they don't exist".
you are an idiot, a bird brain. please kill yourself.
Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark
#5This judgment comes several years after the fact.
Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark
#6The article boils down to one thing: "Obama is floating a bill the author likes. The general consensus is that the reason the market is down is BECAUSE of Obama's bill. The WSJ dares to report that the market is down BECAUSE of Obama's bill. Therefore the WSJ is are a bunch of no-good right-wing authoritarian fascists, and I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and pretend that they don't exist".
My comment (above) has gotten three down votes in 5 minutes.
Has anyone READ the article?
I think that my summary is dead-on accurate.
If you disagree, please post WHY you disagree.
Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark
#7It's not like there are alternatives. The Times has let blatant editorializing sneak onto the front page and throughout every section for as long as I've been reading it, and its the paper of record. Read The Economist.
> Read The Economist.
The Economist produces good content, but it's all editorializing, all the time. Articles aren't even attributed to their authors - they just spring fully formed from The Economist's notional forehead.
Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark
#8The article boils down to one thing: "Obama is floating a bill the author likes. The general consensus is that the reason the market is down is BECAUSE of Obama's bill. The WSJ dares to report that the market is down BECAUSE of Obama's bill. Therefore the WSJ is are a bunch of no-good right-wing authoritarian fascists, and I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and pretend that they don't exist".
My comment (above) has gotten three down votes in 5 minutes. Has anyone READ the article? I think that my summary is dead-on accurate. If you disagree, please post WHY you disagree.
Nice.
Two calm comments of mine, both down voted to 0 or lower.
...and yet someone making no points and calling names (below) still has a positive score.
You down voters ought to be ashamed of yourselves - this is a marketplace of IDEAS, and yet you're just lashing out. Very mature. Very much in the spirit of HN.
Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark
#9The article boils down to one thing: "Obama is floating a bill the author likes. The general consensus is that the reason the market is down is BECAUSE of Obama's bill. The WSJ dares to report that the market is down BECAUSE of Obama's bill. Therefore the WSJ is are a bunch of no-good right-wing authoritarian fascists, and I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and pretend that they don't exist".
My comment (above) has gotten three down votes in 5 minutes. Has anyone READ the article? I think that my summary is dead-on accurate. If you disagree, please post WHY you disagree.
I think the downvotes have more to do with people not wanting to see baldly political rants. The article was about the Wall Street Journal. You replied with an off topic ad-hominem about the authors motivations and intelligence. Bad form.
Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark
#10The article boils down to one thing: "Obama is floating a bill the author likes. The general consensus is that the reason the market is down is BECAUSE of Obama's bill. The WSJ dares to report that the market is down BECAUSE of Obama's bill. Therefore the WSJ is are a bunch of no-good right-wing authoritarian fascists, and I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and pretend that they don't exist".
My comment (above) has gotten three down votes in 5 minutes. Has anyone READ the article? I think that my summary is dead-on accurate. If you disagree, please post WHY you disagree.
I didn't down vote you but I think people are disagreeing with your interpretation of the article. He made it clear in his article that he dislikes both sides. And from his previous articles, I believe him. He doesn't limit his attacks to just one party.