While I agree here, I want to add a caveat that the linked article is technically a "commentary" pieces, not a news-side piece (aka: it's published on the opinion pages). But even given that, the opinion pages of the WSJ is just as fact-filled as the news side, but just highlights that the person writing it may not be a disinterested party.
The Opinion Pages of the WSJ also tend to lean more conservative, while the news side leans liberal. Though they will happily publish people from the left, such as publishing President Biden: https://www.wsj.com/articles/never-bet-against-the-american-...
> The Opinion Pages of the WSJ also tend to lean more conservative, while the news side leans liberal.
As with most News Corp outlets, the news side of the WSJ leans pretty far to the right (it did so even before it was a News Corp outlet, though not as much), it only seems “liberal” by comparison with its own opinion section.
That said, unlike, say, Fox News, the WSJ news side at least makes an effort to adhere to traditional journalistic norms, its right wing bias is more evident in agenda-setting (story selection, devotion of space, and placement/promotion), and less in commentary and outright fabrications in “news” content.
If you think that's "pretty far to the right," I'd wager you haven't met many people on the right or spent much time reading their thought. There's a whole world of interesting political variety on the left, the right, and elsewhere that will never appear in the newspaper.
When you have a profession that leans one way, most reporting likely follows. So while WSJ news seems conservative, it's positions compared to the general public's views leans slightly left. (Though after reading WSJ for many years now, it highly depends on the reporter).
Very good point...you would think tech folks would be better at identifying relative vs absolute frames of reference, but then the problem space is heavily propagandized and there is only so much time in the day.
What would an absolute frame of reference with regard to political opinion look like? I'm having a hard time conceiving such a thing, since not only does the range of opinion shift over time, but issues move into and out of relevance unpredictably.
It would be something like "select * from [reality]", except there are various problems like physically manifest reality is not the entirety of it, and our records of reality are often technically from the fantasy realm and the truth has been lost to time without our knowledge.
In the case of allsides.com, they're only comparing ~mainstream US media outlets against each other, but there are many cultures that would consider even left leaning US culture to be insanely far right.
In a more serious world, competent philosophers/linguists/historians/anthropologists/etc would deconstruct and expose these organizations for what they really are: propaganda outlets.
That applies both ways - there's no shortage of religious-rightist cultures on the planet that'd treat many sections of the U.S. right as quite left-leaning.
Even comparing to Europe, the memes that the US is to the right or left of Europe is just grossly wrong, often driven by taking one pet issue like public healthcare and using it as the base, when it's just one aspect of policy and there are others where Europe is markedly more moderate or conservative compared to the US.
Oftentimes those sorts of bias-rating sites also report clearly left-leaning outlets as more centrist than they are, and I wouldn't be surprised if outlets like the NYT get far higher ratings for factuality than they deserve.
> So funny, did you miss the columbian journalism review destroying legacy media including the nytimes for partisan reporting?
Ooh, whataboutism.
If we were talking about the NYTimes, I'd have plenty to say about the specific factional bias of that outlet, which, yes, its just as intense as the WSJ’s. If the 1990’s neoliberal consensus (today, pretty much the dominant, though decreasingly so over the last decade, centrist corporate capitalist wing of the Democratic Party) was embodied in a newspaper, it would be the New York Times.
the wsj opinion section has gone wildly off the rails.
love their journalism. can't read half the crap they allow to be published in opeds.
at a minimum, is it too much to not publish outright provable lies?
it actually feels like a similar persecution complex vibe to these lawsuits and congressional hearings to me
that somehow if we aren't forced to listen to them, or that their megaphone isn't as loud as it once was, that they are being persecuted and censored with the most orwellian oppression in the history of our country! (i can think of a lot of truly terrible things our govt has done... literal internment camps and more! but that is besides the point)
no one has silenced them. we continue to hear it constantly.
i hear more anti gay slurs now - on traditional media and online - than i ever remember growing up as a very obviously gay boy ;0
if anything, whenever someone crows about being 'cancelled' their message is spread even farther.
there isn't a right to amplification.
the next door kook was never promised a full page column in the local paper. with a guaranteed readership of thousands or millions.
any truth filter or higher bar for discourse that might have existed in legacy news media has been smashed
news corp is the leader and biggest offender
the democratization of the megaphone (internet gives any random conspiracist opportunity to reach more than cronkite did), has given many the impression that they are owed this power to yell and be guaranteed a listening and receptive audience.
> at a minimum, is it too much to not publish outright provable lies?
I'd love to hear some examples. From what I can tell, they don't lie, but they will leave out details that may provide additional context (much like the NYT and WP opinion pages tend to do).
There is a careful line between opinions and facts. From what I can tell, the editorial board doesn't allow outright facts that can be disputed from being published. But things where there may be a disagreement on a given topic, they will allow it to be published.
this is my all time favorite. which i get is a while ago, but i think the nsa cyber will resonate on hn more than current 'hot topics' (gender. biden policies. the guate piece this week really rubbed me the wrong way. worse it was doing the same thing the author critiqued of u.s. insiders lying to support corrupt interests)
the piece: torture and spying is great and stops terrorists! trust me. because of reasons. damned the research saying this isn't true and lack of any proof i could provide as the ultimate insider. that tan suit wearing barack will kill us all!!!
also having the temerity to publish this during peak bush hate too. balls.
though true that what used to be taken as facts are contested now. and history will never be fully settled timestamped and logged.
it just feels like they are winning with purpose. the christian right has built up an entire infrastructure to churn out 'academic' research, opinion pieces, outright buying news media or creating outlets. all of which is then quoted in judicial opinions by their judges and then taken as the full stop truth; when often most other sources disagree or call it less severe and the source is at a minimum insanely biased
The WSJ Opinion pages generally consist of articles written by The Editorial Board and also those submitted by guest contributors. It would be hard to argue that opinion pieces written by external authors and published by the WSJ have any consistency or standard in factuality or completeness. For example, the column frequently includes content from politicians, business leaders, or former campaign managers like Karl Rove. From what I have seen, the WSJ does not edit external opinion pieces, but can write a short disclaimer.
The Opinion Pages of the WSJ also tend to lean more conservative, while the news side leans liberal. Though they will happily publish people from the left, such as publishing President Biden: https://www.wsj.com/articles/never-bet-against-the-american-...