I’ll buy that argument if Cross does
by Brahms (2024-02-27 15:49:49)

In reply to: The sanctions failed. (link)  posted by EricCartman

Cannot Reply Return to Political

Seeing as it comes from the internet.

It actually comes from a paywalled site *
by ACross  (2024-02-27 16:09:02)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

It's the WSJ. Pony up and subscribe. *
by EricCartman  (2024-02-27 16:18:09)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

For its high quality editorial page? *
by ACross  (2024-02-27 17:02:49)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

oh good Lord,
by crazychester  (2024-02-27 21:26:39)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

if the WSJ is deemed an unreliable news organization because of its editorial bent, what's left ?
It's a PBR meme at this point.
by EricCartman  (2024-02-28 10:26:40)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Apparently Cross, who doesn't have a subscription to the WSJ because it costs $12 a month, is well informed on the tone and narrative expressed by the WSJ's op-ed page.

Strangely enough, no one here ever complains about the op-ed section of any other paper. It is only the WSJ that gets criticized.
So true.
by BeijingIrish  (2024-02-28 12:19:55)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

I treat it as a game. Quote the editorial page the WSJ and see how many posters come forward with the ridiculous "...the WSK editorial pages suck". Or, the reliable "it used to be good, but now it sucks."

Nicely played. *
by Brahms  (2024-02-27 16:15:04)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply