Curse you, Rupert Murdoch
The Wall Street Journal, once home to serious journalism, is now officially a branch of Fox 'News'.
Search This Blog
Archives
-
▼
2008
(37)
-
▼
December
(25)
- Blearg
- Hiking
- I took a plane, I took a train
- You Must Construct Additional Pylons
- Age in Korea, and other oddities.
- My hotel in Korea
- Korea
- Pictures of the year
- Reed and Torture
- Curse you, Rupert Murdoch
- Prank signage
- Mental health break of the year
- Et tu, Orson?
- Shudder
- Musical families
- Korea
- On politics
- Homosexuality laws
- That's not change. That's more of the same.
- Oregon and Colorado politics
- Strict
- Blogging from the deep
- It's official
- The View From My Window
- Meta-meta-blogging
-
▼
December
(25)
Categories
- korea (148)
- places of worship (103)
- Britain (63)
- ruins (51)
- awesomeness (48)
- castles fortresses and palaces (47)
- England (38)
- Japan (34)
- architecture (34)
- art (34)
- teaching (34)
- politics (29)
- holidays and festivals (28)
- food (22)
- news (22)
- Cambodia (19)
- philosophy (19)
- Iceland (17)
- volcanoes (17)
- hiking (15)
- meta-blogging (15)
- Wales (13)
- Scotland (12)
- hobocore (12)
- music (12)
- comics (9)
- religion (9)
- cemeteries (7)
- the future (6)
- Viking (5)
- books (5)
- mindfulness (5)
- Romans (4)
- movies (4)
- writing (3)
- Canada (2)
- glaciers (2)
4 comments:
To be fair, the Wall Street Journal had its share of Republican-lapdog writers before Murdoch bought them.
One thing that has always struck me with the old and new Wall Street Journal is its constant editorial biases for the country's plutocracy.
For example, the article says that Libby should be pardoned because, "As a felon, Mr. Libby is barred by law from voting or practicing law, his occupation for most of his working life." I would be very, very, surprised if the WSJ has ever called for changing laws that keep felons from voting. It is only unfair when the rights of the powerful are revoked.
On the other hand, I do have a small, soft part in my heart for Libby. Not because I think he should be pardoned, but because so many administration officials have (thus far) gotten away with so much more. At least on this, he drew the short stick.
The worst part of the editorial is not the recommendation that Libby be pardoned despite the fact that he got precisely what he deserved (and I agree, getting what one deserves is a wild deviation from what has typically happened in the last eight years), but the revisionist history that underlies that recommendation. Yes, the WSJ has long had Republican and (even more so) plutocratic leanings, but they used to avoid the Fox 'News' tendency to report from an alternate universe.
Yea, I didn't follow the Plame scandal closely enough to know how much they were revising the time line.
I mostly mean that the article heavily implies that Armitage is the only one guilty of any wrongdoing and that the whole thing wasn't at all political, or even intentional. In real life, Dick Cheney (who practically admitted this in an exit interview, in addition to his complete admission to having committed war crimes) deliberately ordered the outing of Plame specifically to try to discredit her husband, who was telling the truth about the bullshit that passes for intelligence in the Bush administration. Reading the WSJ editorial, you would think that the whole thing was a slip up by a minor player that dragged poor innocent Scooter through the mud (instead of illegally compromising an agent in order to mislead the country into war, conceived and executed at the highest levels of the government), and it doesn't mention Cheney or Rove at all (even though they master-minded the whole thing).
Post a Comment