On Jul 29, 4:42*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robert Green wrote:

The question is more like "don't you EVER stop drinking?" *As for the
WSJ they've certainly slid downhill like a ton of loose gravel since
Rupert "I'll tap your phone" Murdoch took over. *It's interesting to
see how far they are bending over backwards to try to avoid saying
anything bad about their phone hacking boss.

Hacking into the phone of a young murder victim and leading police to
believe she was still alive is apparently where that line is drawn.
Too bad for Rupe that he's standing on the other side of it. *I
personally believe he bought the WSJ simple to do stock-touting on a
scale that's never been seen before. *I suspect as he tries to throw
his subordinates under the bus, even more dirty laundy will be
showing up the News Corpse. *So funny to watch guys renowned for
micro management say "yes, I signed that huge settlement check but I
didn't know why." *Arf, arf.

NewsCorp took over DowJones (including the WSJ) in late 2007. The WSJ is now
the nation's largest circulation newspaper with over 2 million subscribers
(USA Today has about 1.2 million and the NY Times about 950,000).

As to the WSJ being a shill for Murdoch, their reporting doesn't seem to
bear out that claim:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57645422429362...

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...28-707459.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57642942303768...

And many, similar, stories covering the issue.

The wall between reporting and editing at WSJ remains in better shape
than in most large metropolitan newspapers, where you don't know where
the hell what you're reading comes from. If you read just the
editorial pages of the WSJ you are back in the 18th century, if not
earlier. But other parts of the paper still have good reporting, and
most wonderful of all, good writing and editing!