[AmishDude]

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.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

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.