headermask image

header image

WSJ now part of MBN (Mass Brainwashing News)


I stopped reading the Wall Street Journal due to their support of the Bill Clinton impeachment hoax.   However this still matters because it represents a further takeover of mainstream media by profit mongers who have an agenda that is inimical to the interests of the people of the United States.  In my opinion, our government should have stopped this merger.  But that would mean it is actually working for the interests "of the people", which is a ridiculous notion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCCzPPkeEXc

Last 2 posts in Media

Sphere: Related Content

If you liked this post, feel free to subscribe to our rss feeds

This entry was written by bushtool and posted on August 1, 2007 at 11:17 am and filed under Media. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

2 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

(listed oldest to newest)

  1. The WSJ editorial board was always Murdoch-esque, so they’ll fit right in. However, the news reportage was factual, unbiased, and always concise. I’ve always contended that if you want to know what’s really going on, check the business pages.

    I see that former congressperson Jennifer Dunn, formerly in the Republican House leadership team that you brought you Tom Delay, will sit on some sort of committee that will “ensure” separation between the editorial and news gathering sides of the paper. Fat chance.

    What I want to know is where are we supposed to get our fact-based business news? Reuters? Bloomberg? FT.com? Certainly nothing available in a printed edition, and 2 out 3 of those sources are non-US based.

    [Reply]

    1. Above comment written by AneurinNo Gravatar on August 2nd, 2007 at 9:16 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

  2. Here is a post that contains some hope that our government might actually do something about the purchase:

    FCC Commissioner Michael Copps is already on the record urging his colleagues not to abandon their responsibility to protect the public interest:

    What’s good for shareholders of huge media conglomerates isn’t always what’s good for the public interest or our civic dialogue. We should immediately conduct a careful factual and legal analysis of the transaction to determine how it implicates specific FCC rules and our overarching statutory obligation to protect the public interest. I hope nobody views this as a slam-dunk.

    But cynical me says “don’t hold your breath”. Money mostly trumps standing up to someone like Murdoch. How else would our pols get elected?

    [Reply]

    2. Above comment written by bushtoolNo Gravatar on August 4th, 2007 at 11:26 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
Moderation Active: Comments are open on this post and will be moderated (i.e. the post will not appear immediately, please don't submit twice !)

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*
This site is using OpenAvatar based on

Subscribe without commenting