I read the WSJ regularly. Every now and again one of their staff reporters writes an article that would be best placed in the Boston Globe or NYT, but on the whole I have no problem with their news reporting which tends to be far more objective and factual than the rest of the MSM. Finally, they tend to be unconflicted and explicit about the position they take.
The writing is excellent.
I subscribe to WSJ. I do so for business news. But they are globalist and NWO all the way. The first rate reporting that they do do is not by journalists who want to be stars or celebrities or in the case NYT reporters and editors who do not want to report the story as much as become the story. Obviously, the WSJ made a mistake going with story in the first place, but their biggest mistake was waiting a week gauging the political and commercial effects of their reporting before forcefully explaining themselves. It kinda of looked like a Kerry moment where they were for it before they were against it but now they are really against it. Character and integrity are not based on one's postion as so much the timing of the position.
I have almost the same take regarding the WSJ. The NYT, on the other hand, is a joke, deserving to be mocked and ridiculed. Repeatedly. And treated with indifference.
In this current matter of national security, I am more concerned that some bureaucrat is leaking info to the press. That needs to be pursued doggedly.