I saw the headline in the WSJ this morning and decided I couldn't read it on an empty stomach. I wish that somehow there could be a thorough study of the internal management at the WSJ to understand how the WSJ's reporting could turn out to be so virulently and dishonestly anti-Israel. It is not particularly surprising that some of the paper's front page reporters, particularly those who may have recently been hired, could turn out to be hostile to Israel. It is more difficult, however, to fathom how the paper's editors could be either so inept or so irresponsible to allow such transparently false reporting to pollute the WSJ's coverage of the Gaza war. Finally, even while accepting that there ought to be a separation of the reporting and editorial sections of the paper, I can't understand how those in charge of the editorial page could stand by and fail to attempt an intervention to salvage the WSJ's reputation. Maybe such an effort has been made, but if so it clearly has not produced results.
I suspect the Journal has taken a dark turn owing to the machinations of the more liberal younger son of Rupert, who’s been in a fight with his older and more conservative brother Lachlan for control of the empire. If it weren’t for the outstanding editorial page editors, I would be relinquishing my subscription of about 40 years right about now.
I saw the headline in the WSJ this morning and decided I couldn't read it on an empty stomach. I wish that somehow there could be a thorough study of the internal management at the WSJ to understand how the WSJ's reporting could turn out to be so virulently and dishonestly anti-Israel. It is not particularly surprising that some of the paper's front page reporters, particularly those who may have recently been hired, could turn out to be hostile to Israel. It is more difficult, however, to fathom how the paper's editors could be either so inept or so irresponsible to allow such transparently false reporting to pollute the WSJ's coverage of the Gaza war. Finally, even while accepting that there ought to be a separation of the reporting and editorial sections of the paper, I can't understand how those in charge of the editorial page could stand by and fail to attempt an intervention to salvage the WSJ's reputation. Maybe such an effort has been made, but if so it clearly has not produced results.
I suspect the Journal has taken a dark turn owing to the machinations of the more liberal younger son of Rupert, who’s been in a fight with his older and more conservative brother Lachlan for control of the empire. If it weren’t for the outstanding editorial page editors, I would be relinquishing my subscription of about 40 years right about now.