I’ve been a moderate conservative for over 40 years. My principal source of news has been the Wall Street Journal. Its investigations, reporting, writing and opinion work have been without parallel. (I’ll admit that my regard for the Journal may have been heightened when they published a piece I wrote on mountaineering.)
But no more. Yes, sometimes they still do very good investigative work. And the opinion pages are still very good and mostly conservative. (And their mountaineering stuff is fabulous, albeit limited.)
I’ll note that those opinion pages often include opinions from the other side. Joe Biden has guest-opined there, as have Elizabeth Warren, Charles Schumer and other leading Democrats. I don’t respect those Dems’ opinions, but I do respect the Journal for publishing them.
Publishing opinions that run contrary to an outlet’s leanings is unusual these days. When Senator Tom Cotton got an opinion piece published in the New York Times, the staff revolted and the NYT editor who approved the piece for publication was forced to resign.
If democracy dies in darkness, credit the mainstream media – the so-called fourth estate of our three-branch system – for turning out the lights.
But aside from good investigative work and the opinion page, the Journal has deteriorated. The writing is increasingly hackneyed and littered with millennial colloquialisms. You can almost see the bosses gathered in a conference room scheming to get more silly slang into the writing in order to attract, they think, the next generation of readers.
Little do they know that the next generation includes very few readers of the sort of content offered by the Journal. A plurality of that generation favors socialism over capitalism – the system touted by the Journal and most serious economists which enabled that generation’s parents to make enough money to pay outlandish sums to the educational industrial complex for their children’s magnificent four-year post-high school camps.
The Journal will not successfully compete with social media for that generation by using “ur” for “your” or “4” for “for.” Sorry, guys. Maybe try video. Oops, they’re doing that too. Maybe they should offer video games. Maybe online gambling and porn?
My biggest beef with the Journal is that the steak of real news is now overwhelmed by the sizzle of leftism. While the opinion pages remain mostly conservative, the news pages have drifted the other way.
For example, the Journal’s news reports often reach for an excuse to weave in global warming. Their reports will suggest that practically any weather event – hot or cold, drought or flood, hurricanes or the absence of them – is due to global warming.
Heck, you can’t read the reviews by the wine critic without seeing an unsupported mention of the effects of global warming on grapes. I anticipate a headline along the lines of “Global Warming Ends World; Wine Snobs Suffer Most.”
Then there’s what used to be called “diversity, equity and inclusion” before it earned a bad name for itself when the Supreme Court called it what it is – racial discrimination in violation of our Constitution. Unswayed by the Supreme Court justices and their multi-hundred page analyses, the Journal’s news page (specifically the “Business” page) casually remarks that “there’s no question that [racial] bias exists.”
Their argument to support that biased statement claiming racial bias is that some races are generally (not always) less successful than others. As for surveys uniformly showing that Americans are in fact not racist, the authors fall back on “unconscious” racism – the sneaky kind that you’re not even aware of and that’s impossible to disprove.
If the Journal applied this absence of rigorous analysis to its financial reporting, they would report that the reason some companies are more successful than others is simply that the customers of the respective companies are irrational.
In foreign policy, the Journal now sails with the fleet of lefty media opposing Israel. A piece this week pot-shotted the Netanyahu government as “the most right-wing, ultranationalist and religiously conservative government in Israel’s history.” (The horrible irony of implying that Israelis are neo-Nazi types is lost on the left. Their “analysis” is along the lines of: we dislike Israel because they are the enemies of our friends, the Palestinian terrorists.)
No data was offered to back up the reporter’s inflammatory language, but it did include a link to another piece. When you click on the link, it takes you to an earlier article by the same reporter, using the identical inflammatory phrase, once again without attribution or support.
Hatred of Israel is one of the catechisms of the left; it’s a totem needing no supporting data.
I posted a comment on the article, as follows:
“… what is widely viewed as the most right-wing, ultranationalist and religiously conservative government in Israel’s history.”
Viewed as such by whom? The reporter doesn’t say.
If you clink into the link he offers, it takes you to another piece by the same reporter using the identical combative phrase, again without support or attribution.
The Journal’s news pages are drifting leftward beyond WaPo and NYT, and into HuffPo territory.
My comment duly appeared when I posted it, but then the Journal removed it within an hour.
Most irksome, the Journal’s liberal bias appears on the news page, not on the opinion page where it belongs. Over on the opinion page, interestingly, the columns typically opine the opposite of what’s “reported” on the “news” pages.
So, either the opinions on the opinion pages are counter-factual, or the news reports on the news page are wrongly presenting opinion as fact.
As a conservative, I naturally believe it’s the latter. I’ll put my money on Daniel Henninger or Kimberley Strassel on the opinion pages rather than the inexperienced, no-name, slang-slinging, lefty “news” reporters on the news pages. But either way, the paper is internally inconsistent in confusing opinions with facts.
I’m not alone in perceiving this liberal slant in the Journal’s news pages. No less than a prominent federal judge has formally taken note of the slant.
I’m left with a question. Now what? I won’t rely on the silly click bait at Fox New or – GAWD! – sites like The Epoch Times.
Sigh. The internet gave us access to all the news fit to print, but destroyed the means of fairly printing it. Even the Wall Street Journal is now a propagandizing appendage of The Man. It’s reduced to a few great writers and thinkers on the island of the opinion page surrounded by a sea of biased barbarians on the “news” page presenting contrary opinions in the guise of facts – blindly believing that to do otherwise would threaten democracy.
My book “High Attitude — How Woke Liberals Ruined Aspen” is available at Amazon and Barnes and Noble and was recently reviewed in The Federalist.
the Aspen beat 
The Epoch Times is a decent newspaper, Glenn. Give it a try. They don’t use 4 u for you.
I was also going to recommend Epoch Times.
I know your pain. I too have taken notice not only of the degraded quality of writing in the WSJ, but leftist “consensus opinion” working its way onto the news pages that differentiate them little from that of the New York Times or the Washington Post. The non sequitur insertion of “climate change” into almost every story has become most egregious.
Hey, millennials at the WSJ: If it’s such an obvious consensus, then why do you feel the need to insert it into literally every story? If you can’t answer that question, you have no business practicing what we used to call “journalism”.
I think the decline was predictable when the Murdoch clan bought the WSJ nearly 20 years ago. And Karl Rove as a regular on the editorial page. I guess the only surprise should be that it took this long to get where we are today.
But where does one go from here for decent, straight reporting? The WSJ was our last stand in national printed media.
Don’t overlook Peggy Noonan as the standard bearer for the WSJ’s anti-Trump, anti-populism bias, so evident in the alacrity with which it dismissed glaring evidence of widespread election fraud and decided to “move on.”
As for the future, with Rupert gone, it’s probably going further downhill.
Yes on Epoch Times. Also the New York Sun does a good job. I have subscribed. We should all try to support freedom of the press in the most freedom loving outlets we can find.
I canceled my subscription months ago when the WSJ ran a piece comparing Trump to Sam Bankman-Fried. It was a sleazy comparison to say the least. I refuse to pay a publication (or a candidate) to insult my intelligence.
I agree entirely. In fact, sharing your impressions, I canceled my long-standing subscription to the WSJ’s digital option earlier this week, and since I live in Minnesota I took the opportunity to cancel my sub to the egregious Star-Tribune as well. We’re both late to the game, but our timing is significant. Fred Milverstedt Plymouth, MN Retired journalist
“… what is widely viewed as the most right-wing, ultranationalist and religiously conservative government in Israel’s history.” is EXACTLY why my late husband and I admire Benji and his supporters. Epoch news is great and deserves a try.
“… what is widely viewed as the most right-wing, ultranationalist and religiously conservative government in Israel’s history.” is exactly why I admire Benji and his supporters. Also the Epoch Times deserves a try
Agreed. Almost all newspapers that I have read have become waste paper. I’ve terminated all subscriptions to paper news be they newspapers or magazines. Searching the internet and being careful to really read as opposed to scanning has caused me to find unusual sources of information. Even then, the facts must be substantiated.
The Epoch Times is one source that I read. Some web sites, such as Power Line and “the Aspen Beat”, provide useful information regularly.
I feel your pain. I have been a WSJ reader for years. Oh my, it too has ben caught up in Woke, DIE, on and on. If it were not for Kim Strassel and Dan Henninger, I would sign off. I tried Epoch Times, no, the research is not there.
What to do? Keep us posted on your progress.
Yes, the universities have won the culture, and with journalism sick unto death, there’s not much left to do other than pulling your subscription dollars.
With the COVID event came the Trusted News Initiative. The corporation owning the WSJ was one of the founding members..The idea is to print no news that counters standard woke opinion.
You’re 100% on target re the dichotomy between the Journal’s news and editorial sections. It even extends to the copy editing: it’s “Black and white” in the news, “black and white” in the editorials.
The day of the WSJ section devoted to the wonders of EV’s without a corresponding rebuttal ( no matter how hard I looked) my heart sank. Besides exceptional columnists like Henninger and Strassel, an acceptable mix of opinions mostly, and my daily crossword puzzles ( now tainted with clues for some of the most despised wokesters in government) the time had undeniably come for a complete break.
I put it off. Left leaning news toxicity was simply a recurring nightmare that would disappear the next day, the next week, the next month.
Not. WSJ millennial staff lefties in all their arrogance have doubled down. Peggy’s accelerates with each of her Insulting columns. Facts are as immaterial as in every other compromised media outlet. My confusion with the conflicts between reported news and opinions is real.
Mr. Beaton’s article is the signal I dreaded.
In the vernacular,
I’m done.
This new? There has been a dichotomy for many years, even before the Murdochs got hold of it.
Agreed, 40+ year WSJ subscriber here. The left bias in their reporting has been there for years, but it’s much worse now. I find that I’m only reading the news headlines, and the opinion page (except Noonan). For the most part what the “news” articles will say is pretty predictable. And toss in the revamp of their iPad app earlier this month, the whole experience is no longer worth the price.
The left-leaning WSJ took a blow,
Subscribers began to let go.
With views more extreme,
They chased off their dream,
Now they’ve fewer readers in tow!
I fully agree with this column. I’ve been a daily reader of the WSJ for more than 50 years and have definitely noticed the Journal’s news section gradually moving further and further to the left each year. On top of that, the quality of reporting has declined so substantially that I’m beginning to spot serious factual errors almost daily.
Indeed. I have to wonder if the factual errors are because history is poorly taught in the schools these days. If that’s the reason, it’s a bigger problem than poor journalism.
As a long time subscriber to the WSJ, it is getting very discouraging.
Please don’t throw the baby out with the bath water! You could just toss the news and enjoy the op-ed stuff. It really is the best!
I certainly WISH the Journal’s op-ed stuff were worthwhile (to offset the mediocre news coverage), but I’m constantly disappointed by it. The editorials tend to focus on taxation and corporate concerns that don’t much interest me, and the political editorials are downright feeble. And the regular columnists aren’t much better. Kimberley Strassel does her homework, bless her, and is reliably worth reading; McGurn is as well. Jenkins is an atrocious writer with nonetheless intriguing ideas, but all the others — most notably Henninger — just seem to be phoning it in. My own vote for best opinions (and they’re free) go to the folks at Power Line.
Sorry, make that “goes to the folks at Power Line.”
I totally agree with you. The WSJ is not the conservative source it once was, but it took me a long time to recognize that.
Comments on the editorials is a rare opportunity to spar with liberal trolls (who mostly seem to be paid. Having once been young, liberal and stupid once I assure you that such people are reachable. I used to pick up my dad’s national review and attempt to refute their opinion pieces. Eventually I began to agree with them, then came Jimmy Carter
The Power Line Blog is a great news resource and yes, although they are definitely conservative and tend to focus on Minnesota issue where they are located, they report and analyze based on facts and use cause and effect analysis that always strives to arrive at objective truth.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/
So the WSJ’s conservatism has been suspect for quite a while. Going into the heart of conservatism is to identify what the word means and just what exactly it is we are trying to conserve. 20th century conservative theoreticians like Russell Kirk, Frank Meyer, and the late William F. Buckley, all advanced the notion that the conservative movement is trying to preserve the natural freedoms and God ordained liberties bestowed upon humanity, as recognized in our Founding American documents.
Through the decades, and even centuries, the government and its agents have constantly attempted (and frequently succeeded) in whittling down our birthright freedoms through various Amendments (number XVI created the income tax) and other gargantuan omnibus bills and laws, taxes, administrative regulations, etc. The effects of these unrelenting drip, drip, drip of corrosive actions on our personal freedoms created the reaction and the political momentum to fuel the modern conservative movement. Buckley is famous for his quotation of standing athwart history, and yelling Stop!
See: https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/12/in-defense-of-those-who-dare-to-yell-stop/
The mainstream media, i.e., ABC/CBS/CNN/NBC/NYT/PBS/WaPo and now even the WSJ, have by and large abdicated their once vigorous defense and promotion of the 1st Amendment. This is just another corrosive drip, and is obviously an issue that the conservative movement should take head on and pound away at the left wing MSM.
Anyways … in regards to conservatism, our Founders recognized in our Declaration the idea of self-evident truths. The pursuit of self-evident truths, whether it is that all men are created equal, or that all men are created XY genetic males and all women are created XX genetic females, is no less salient today as was some 250 years ago. Self-evident truths are objective truths … truths that are arrived at through rigorous scientific analyses and tests, as well as in the legal arena in which facts and evidence are tested and challenged, and objective truth is arrived at.
Here’s an objective legal truth as a prime example … convicted multiple murderer Kevin Cooper is absolutely guilty of his crimes, despite whatever Hollywood activists may say, and he deserves the ultimate punishment for his heinous deeds.
Reference: https://www.ocregister.com/2023/01/14/clemency-probe-confirms-kevin-coopers-guilt-again-letters-to-the-editor/?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral
The pursuit of objective truth, the promotion of virtue, the recognition that delayed gratification and working today to reap tomorrow’s rewards, the inherent rights of free speech, freedom to worship, the freedom to keep the fruits of your labor, the ability to defend yourself against marauding thieves, invaders, or a tyrannical government … these (and more) are the freedoms and liberties that conservatism seek to preserve, i.e., to conserve for our current generation and for our future generations.
Sadly … the WSJ has succumbed to what F.A. Hayek referred to as the Fatal Conceit. Others also refer to this conceit as the Socialist Temptation. Even though we have our US Constitution with Federalism, divided government, and checks and balances, there is always this conceited temptation to breakdown these designed power barriers to make government more “efficient,” more streamlined, more responsive, more consolidated, more centralized, and ultimately … more totalitarian. This is the constant drip, drip, drip that erodes away our individual freedoms.
So, I too gave up on the WSJ a number of years ago, although they keep sending me e-mail offers to come back and subscribe. Yet I still occasionally read some of their articles and/or op-eds by going around paywalls, as well as occasionally poaching other articles and op-eds from leftist publications like WaPo and the NYT (I do this not because I like or agree with the reportage or the columns, but to know what the adversaries are thinking and saying.)
A tip, if you want to get around most of these paywalls … this is a lot like eating your cake and still having it too … check out these couple websites and cut and paste the url to read the online article you are seeking:
https://www.printfriendly.com/
If this pdf/print site does not work, then try:
https://archive.vn/
One or the other of these websites will get you about 90% + of the paywall articles you are looking for.
Lastly, there may be a few purists who chide me or others for using these paywall work around sites, as I could be in a way, sort of “stealing” these articles by reading them for free.
I once briefly had a concern about this, but then I came to the larger realization that these leftist/progressive MSM outlets are actively promoting the usurpation of my individual freedoms. They want to see me converted, or broken, or for me to bend the knee. Nope … no way.
Yet these same MSM outlets will then go on to defend Antifa/BLM rioters looting and burning private businesses and the wholesale organized mass looting and shoplifting of retail stores by criminal gangs and serial shoplifters. They will promote and support creepy international Bond-villains like Klaus Schwab in Davos trying to get me to eat bugs while he also works in the background to throttle the free speech rights of billions of people worldwide.
So no … I have no sense of guilt in using these online work around sites.
Give your enemies no quarter.
https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-7rn2kv4eyb/images/stencil/1280×1280/products/222/734/No_Quarter_Sticker__31474.1592008083.png?c=1
We have the same struggle in this household. Are the WSJ editors fearful their newbie woke reporters will rebel if they’re corrected? Are the Murdochs hedging their bets? If you find a news source equal to the WSJ without the unfortunate baggage, please make a public announcement. We’ll join your parade.