Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hunt quits Wall Street Journal for Bloomberg News
Poynter.org ^ | 11/19/2004 | Jim Romenesko

Posted on 11/19/2004 11:19:17 AM PST by GeneD

WSJ executive Washington editor Al Hunt joins Bloomberg News in January as managing editor for government reporting. "In his 39 years at the Journal, Al has been cited as 'Washington's most trusted reporter,' and "most dynamic bureau chief' before he turned to commentary and TV as a columnist and anchor," writes Bloomberg News editor-in-chief Matt Winkler.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; Political Humor/Cartoons; Politics/Elections; US: New York
KEYWORDS: alhunt; goodriddance; tobadrubbish
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 last
To: GeneD

Wonderful!


41 posted on 11/19/2004 12:13:53 PM PST by IStillBelieve (G.W. Bush '04: Biggest popular-vote victory in history, and first popular-vote majority in 16 years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
Thank gawd I won't have to see his miserable byline anymore. He was the Journal's Safire.
42 posted on 11/19/2004 12:15:35 PM PST by Pharmboy (Listen...you can still hear the old media sobbing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zygoat

You owe me a new keyboard!!


43 posted on 11/19/2004 12:20:18 PM PST by TrueKnightGalahad (It's time for us to reclaim Liberalism from the reactionary left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Frumious Bandersnatch

Jeanne Cummings is a pretty consistently awful. She is one of their political reporters. I subscribe to their online mostly for editorials and business news. It's too bad they are getting rid of Hunt, though. It was kinda like having a cartoon on the Op/Ed page. I won't get to send him mocking emails anymore. Isn't he married to Judy Woodruff?


44 posted on 11/19/2004 12:41:51 PM PST by ottothedog (Forbes 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GeneD

Adios, Al. I haven't read the Thursday OPINION column for years.

It's the only thing on the WSJ editorial page that is almost always wrong and always a waste of time.


45 posted on 11/19/2004 1:19:51 PM PST by RBroadfoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CasearianDaoist
The good news just keeps coming.

It really has been a great month, hasn't it?

46 posted on 11/19/2004 1:20:53 PM PST by jalisco555 ("The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." W. B. Yeats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GeneD

I make it a point never to read Hunt's column in the WSJ and I'm sure I'm not alone. He's also been one of the reasons the Journal's news reporting is consistently to the left of the editorial comment. Good riddance.


47 posted on 11/19/2004 1:22:01 PM PST by jalisco555 ("The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." W. B. Yeats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zygoat; ErnBatavia

LOL
i was sitting here wondering how to get the word MIKE in
this post!

LOL


48 posted on 11/19/2004 1:24:30 PM PST by SortaBichy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
Al has been cited as 'Washington's most trusted reporter,'

Yeah, like Walter Crankcase was "America's Most Trusted Newsman".

49 posted on 11/19/2004 1:31:01 PM PST by SuziQ (W STILL the President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frumious Bandersnatch

Al Hunt was the news director. I don't know when or if he ever gave up that job, but he was at one time responsible for what appeared on p. 1.


50 posted on 11/19/2004 3:17:34 PM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GeneD
I hope he likes working like a slave.

Also, he is no longer allowed to use the words, "but," "merger," "deal," and many others.

51 posted on 11/19/2004 3:19:37 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

That may be, but still, the WSJ news was never an extension of their editorial page (unlike the NYT).


52 posted on 11/19/2004 3:25:13 PM PST by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Frumious Bandersnatch

It was the opposite. The WSJ news pages ran to the left of center, sometimes with NYT-like aggressiveness.


53 posted on 11/19/2004 3:30:40 PM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

I never saw it. The news was rarely slanted and was much more objective than any other MSM newspaper.


54 posted on 11/19/2004 3:36:50 PM PST by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Frumious Bandersnatch
In this ancient thread, you were arguing that the WSJ news pages were unbiased:

From this thread:

The best analysis I know along these lines is the ongoing study "A Measure of Media Bias," by professors Tim Groseclose of UCLA and Jeffrey Milyo of the University of Missouri. ...

The researchers used these data to calculate, effectively, an ADA rating for each media outlet. The idea is that outlets that refer favorably to conservative think tanks are reasonably viewed as conservative, whereas those that refer favorably to liberal think tanks are plausibly labeled liberal. ...

One surprise is that the Wall Street Journal's news pages have the most liberal rating of all, 85, about the same as the typical Democrat in Congress. The rating for the Journal's editorial pages would of course look very different. (As one quipster observed, James Carville and Mary Matalin probably agree more often than the news and editorial divisions of the Wall Street Journal.)

Ahem.

55 posted on 12/05/2004 11:33:59 AM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
No, I didn't say that they were unbiased. I just said that they were far more objective than other MSM.

And yes, I read the article you were referring to also. However, from my experience with the WSJ, their news reporting has been much fairer and even-handed than the NYT or WaPost.

Now, I offer up to hypothesis as to why the perceived liberal bias in the WSJ news (Al Hunt's editorial columns have always been way over the top).

1). The WSJ has changed radically since I last read it 10 years ago.

2). The ratings that the research gives to the WSJ either are suspect or are only one dimension of a multi-dimensional problem.

As far as #1 is concerned, I find it possible, though not probable that the WSJ has changed so drastically in a mere decade. #2 indicates that the preferred think tanks are more liberal, but doesn't say anything about the quality of the reporting itself.
56 posted on 12/06/2004 8:06:24 AM PST by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Max Combined

You should see today's column (Thursday, Dec. 9) "Red Flags for the GOP's Political Bull Market"

The first 4/5ths of it are all donning the mask and cape of Captain Obvious and warning us hoi polloi that tax reform and reform of Social Security is going to be...(gasp) DIFFICULT! And that (horrors!) 2nd terms are different and in some ways harder than first terms!

But those first 4/5ths aren't even the half of it. Here are the last three paragraphs that make me throw concerns about bias out the window in favor of an intervention for Al over possible substance abuse problems. Pay special attention to the second paragraph:

***

"He'll have even less (support) if Iraq continues to deteriorate. The official line that we're making progress and it'll get much better after the Jan. 30 elections has no credibility. This week the New York Times revealed a bleak picture painted by a classified cable from the CIA's Baghdad station chief. Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, after a recent trip to Iraq, said some areas are actually more dangerous than a few months ago. The early line on training Iraqis to take over the security tasks is not encouraging.
"Peter Galbraith, a serious student of the Iraqis and Kurds, just returned from a 12-day stay in Iraq and is horrified at what's occurring: 'The optimistic scenario is that half of the country (controlled by the Shiites) will be turned over to the Iranians; the Kurds will resist that and the Sunni area is a violent mess.'"
"There's talk of stretching out the elections and little reason to believe violence, bloodshed or American casualties will decline. Years of thousands of young Americans dying in a foreign civil war will transform any second-term euphoria."
"If that sounds familiar, it is; think 40 years ago."

Aside from this strange, indecipherable quote from Peter Galbraith that apparently only he and Al understand, Al reminds me of someone talking on the phone at the office who partially overhears other conversations and finds alarming things in them.

Like maybe the guy in the next cube is talking about how Peyton Manning had fire in his eyes in the Kansas City game, and then Al puts down his phone and says "Fire? There's a fire? I heard from a serious student of firefighting that there's a fire!"


57 posted on 12/09/2004 11:06:34 AM PST by Zhangliqun (What are intellectuals for but to complexify the obvious?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson