To: VRWCmember
There are actually people that will pay to read WSJ.That's pretty bizarre as well.
They may espouse a different ideology than the Times, but that doesn't make 'em any more "unbiased" or "objective".
In fact, I've become quite disgusted with the disingenous bilge that passes for an "informed opinion" on the WSJ's editorial pages.
15 posted on
01/07/2005 12:33:13 PM PST by
Willie Green
(Go Pat Go!!!)
To: Willie Green
In fact, I've become quite disgusted with the disingenous bilge that passes for an "informed opinion" on the WSJ's editorial pages. I know what you mean. They are pretty anti when it comes to pork barrel rapid transit systems.
To: Willie Green
They may espouse a different ideology than the Times, but that doesn't make 'em any more "unbiased" or "objective". In fact, I've become quite disgusted with the disingenous bilge that passes for an "informed opinion" on the WSJ's editorial pages. At least at WSJ the editorials are reserved for the editorial page. Also, the WSJ has at least one token liberal (Al Hunt) to offer some variety of viewpoints on the editorial page.
18 posted on
01/07/2005 12:36:47 PM PST by
VRWCmember
("You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Indigo Montoya)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson