Talk:The Wall Street Journal/Archive 1

message: Thames is correct is changing the title of "OpinionJournal" to "Editorial page" (though perhaps it would be better in the plural). The former term nowhere appears in the print version of the Journal; it's the title of a free online site featuring WSJ editorials, opinion pieces, and reviews, plus some hard-right commentary (notably "Best of the Web Today" by James Taranto) that doesn't appear in the print edition. --Cubdriver 22:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OpinionJournal 

message: His columns do not express politically liberal viewpoints, and are not on the WSJ Editorial page.  The germane point is a contrast between the editorial pages of NYT and WSJ.  User: Cubdriver's edit stating Wessel's inclusion in WSJ somehow makes it a publisher of liberal columnists is disingenuous, to say the least.  I've removed it. Eleemosynary 03:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Wessel 

message: I don't want to get into put-it-in, take-it-out battle, but I object to the removal of the line "The reporting, however, is admirably unbiased." 
The preceding sentence (which I wrote) declares that the editorial pages have a conservative slant, while the news pages in their analytic pieces tend toward the liberal mindset you'd expect to find in the New York Times or Washington Post. I'm thinking of such pieces as the ongoing series in mobility in American society, as well as the opinion pieces coming from the Washington bureau. But this is not true of what used to be called "hard news." Here, in my judgment, the WSJ is indeed "admirably unbiased." 
Removing the sentence makes it seem as if the news pages overall presented information with a liberal flavor. That's not the case! --Cubdriver 20:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "admirably" is no longer in the article - Trödel 18:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbiased 

message: As the French newspaper is currently being characterized as "militant" in its article I would like to know whether the Wall Street Journal's article on February 6, 2003, insulting French President Jaques Chirac as a "balding Joan of Arc in drag": "The Rat that Roared" Christopher Hitchens would qualify this newspaper as "militant" as well? Just a rhetorical question... Get-back-world-respect 15:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you address the problems in that article rather than trying to "balance" out other articles to compensate? -Joseph (Talk) 04:04, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)
Hitchens's piece would have been an op-ed, not reporting--if it exists at all. The link leads to a blank page at another site, nothing to do with WSJ.. -- Cubdriver
It exists.  I recall reading it.  171.159.64.10 22:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Militant? 

message: Is it incorrect to describe the WSJ as Liberterian (or classically liberal)? I think using the term 'conservative' or 'liberal', alone, is ambiguous, and will confuse many non-Americans and Americans alike. --70.16.236.48 05:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertarian? 

message: This paper is conservative, period. The news coverage is not "liberal."
: I think the poster was insisting on "classical liberal" (i.e., Edmund Burke) or was conflating "liberal" and "libertarian". The change you made was fine by me, also a reader for many years. However, the Washington columns in my judgment do tend to the left of center, as do some of the news-section feature articles. --Cubdriver 14:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  News coverage 

message: A recent change declares that the Journal editorial page takes a "pro-business" line on immigration. What exactly is that, and how does it differ from a "liberal" line on immigration? Is Emma Lazarus pro-business when she urges "Give me your tired, your poor / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free / The wretched refuse of your teeming shore / Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me / I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" Is that pro-biz? It's exactly what the Journal espouses. --Cubdriver 21:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No entirely but certainly in part.  See, for example, the position of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which claims to represent 3 million U.S. businesses.  Businesses generally favor immigration because it helps to keep wages down; there are many jobs, seasonal agricultural labor in particular, where non-permanent residents and “migrant workers” have a significant effect on the cost of labor.  (Put bluntly, the jobs are so unpleasant and repetitive that few Americans would want them at twice the wage.)  There is also substantial business support for the H-1B visa program, which allows highly-skilled foreign workers (many educated at U.S. universities) to work in the country for five years in technical positions such as I.T. where there is currently a shortage of domestic workers.  Labor organizations generally oppose both sorts of programs, for the many of the same reasons that businesses support them.  121a0012 02:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: One of the other arguments, from macroeconomic principles, has to do with the ability of the economy to sustain long-term growth.  Many people believe that, in order to continue growing its economy, the U.S. must continue growing its labor force—particularly as members of the baby boom generation reach retirement and start to spend down their life savings.  The birth rate of the native-born population is now below replacement, so the only place this labor-force growth can come from, absent a sudden increase in fertility, is immigration.  Businesses generally favor economic growth, particularly in the financial-services industry which still makes up a large part of the WSJ subscriber base.  121a0012 02:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is pro-business line on immigration? 

message: I don't understand why cubdriver (who seems to be frequent here) would delete the section on the redesign change.  The move from 15 inches to 12 inches is a quantum change in the newspaper world and has spurred almost all large dailies to move toward the 12 inch format.  That bit of a news which includes the citation is a lot more relevant to the article than a lot of the stream consciousness ramblings I see elsewhere in the article. Americasroof 22:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check his Talk Page here .  It's very telling.  He seems to regard Wikipedia as a fool's errand, and is reverting at will.  If he does not respond on this page, I will regard his reversions and blanking as vandalism, and will revert accordingly. Eleemosynary 03:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments.  It's kinda scary to see somebody veer so far off the truth.  The new 12 inch format is pretty close to the U.S. familiar  letter size 8 1/2 inch x 11 inch landscape format.  So the ultimate direction is the WSJ is going to be a tabloid!!!  That's pretty big news for the most iconic newspaper design in America!!!   I'm still working on how to word that news!   -Americasroof 04:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring design change info