Wall Street Journal Independence Disproved (And Not By Murdoch)

So, after Rupert Murdoch and News Corp. have finally bought the Wall Street Journal so here come the complaints. Many people are talking about how Murdoch will mess with the Journal's independence. However, a couple reporters made a mistake; they talked to other reporters and gave quotes. Let's look at one quote and see what the reporter really says.

"It's a sickening realization to know that this really great iconic newspaper is [not only] no longer going to be independent, but is also going to be controlled by a man whose values are inimical to ours."

Hmmm....What does that say to you? Values inimical to reporters? What does that imply to you? Me, I read it as the reporter thinks that Murdoch is on the opposite of the reporters. Now, since Murdoch is known as a conservative (though I am not sure of that really since even Fox News isn't that conservative, no matter how much liberals try to argue that it is), does this mean the reporters yesterday were liberal working for the Journal? Isn't that what is being said? What happened to objective? Now, I know someone will argue that the maybe the reporter meant they were objective, except the paper chosen for the quote busts that theory. (The quote was given to the lefty Los Angeles Times.)

Ultimately, what will change? The Journal has been business friendly with a right slant just as the New York Times has had a left slant. Will anything change, even if there wasn't a supposed "independent" clause in the contract? Nope, probably not. See, no matter what the loony left says, ignore it and look at it from a logical perspective. The Wall Street Journal exists to serve business and market participants. Murdoch can't really mess with that. And the Journal's opinion page, which I subscribed to for about a year before running out of time to read it, yeah, that has a noticeable right slant. So why would Murdoch try to change it? You know, that actually is the most important question and one I wish the idiotic reporters would answer. What world are they living in where Murdoch would mess with the opinion page?

You know what, even if a few reporters lost their jobs, odds are they would be the anti-business reporters. Now, what reader of the Journal would be sad to see them go?

By the way, have you ever noticed how it is liberals who are so scared of conservatives owning media outlets? See, conservatives never fear when another liberal CNN or New York Times style media outlet starts up. What are liberals afraid of? (I have an answer, trying to stick with Occam's Razor - the simplest explanation is usually best - and the only thing I can think of is that liberals are afraid of people being exposed to other viewpoints, reminiscent of old time religion practices. Now, wouldn't this imply that liberal ideas are worthless because if they meant anything, liberals would love to have other ideas to compare with and illustrate how great their ideas are, inviting dissent rather than suppressing it. Ahh, nailed it, and I know for certain because I use logic and look at proof instead of just relying on emotional pleas to determine facts.)

Well, here's hoping some lousy reporters get that nice, well-deserved pink piece of paper with their next paycheck. Now if only a conservative bought the New York Times and saved us all the pain of incompetence and lying stories that has characterized that paper for the past few decades. One can only dream...

Oh, I am not putting a link to the worthless reporting. No point giving incompetent reporters any more readers.