Does anyone else notice the change in the last year since the Wall Street Journal sold it's soul to the Fox News Empire? In Friday's paper, first section, front page, was an article on... get this: Cilantro. I read it to see if it was going to mention the business of farming or relate it to other vegetable issues, foreign cultivation, or CO2 usage of resulting effects of flying veges across the continent. NO. The article was all about how there are some people who love and many vocal folks who hate cilantro so much they've created an on-line presence.
WTF?!
Not to be overlooked was the opinion article by Carl Rove last week on how he basically isn't to blame for an future problems with the economy. It reminded me a lot of Cheney's last interview - see John Stewart comments via this episode: (around minute 9:, you can also copy&paste: http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=217691 )
I was also a little confused by the article titled, "New Grid for Renewable Energy Could Be Costly" last week. It sure made a lot of pronouncements I would expect more from an 'opinion' article and showed very little research. It didn't even begin to explore the fact that renewable energy isn't necessarily 'extra' energy but perhaps 'instead of' energy currently generated by coal burning.
Did anyone notice last spring when the front page snipits talked about 'the chemical that contaminates milk'? Why couldn't that writer (or the editor?!) say: 'melamine'? At that writing, most readers of the WSJ and most people in the world were very informed about melamine and how it was being used all too often in China.
I understand that a new owner would want to make changes. I don't completely dislike all the color photos all over each section, but is it increasing readership? ..or simply justifying the extra pages I already feel guilty for loving reading a daily PAPER product, needed for all the extra advertising that didn't exist before? I could do with less advertising.
I'm dumbfounded and really disgraced by my WSJ. Who else reads the Journal? What other papers do you recommend that offer (relatively) unbiased news, less fluff, and good writing? What's my alternative? What papers do you read and why?
WTF?!
Not to be overlooked was the opinion article by Carl Rove last week on how he basically isn't to blame for an future problems with the economy. It reminded me a lot of Cheney's last interview - see John Stewart comments via this episode: (around minute 9:, you can also copy&paste: http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=217691 )
I was also a little confused by the article titled, "New Grid for Renewable Energy Could Be Costly" last week. It sure made a lot of pronouncements I would expect more from an 'opinion' article and showed very little research. It didn't even begin to explore the fact that renewable energy isn't necessarily 'extra' energy but perhaps 'instead of' energy currently generated by coal burning.
Did anyone notice last spring when the front page snipits talked about 'the chemical that contaminates milk'? Why couldn't that writer (or the editor?!) say: 'melamine'? At that writing, most readers of the WSJ and most people in the world were very informed about melamine and how it was being used all too often in China.
I understand that a new owner would want to make changes. I don't completely dislike all the color photos all over each section, but is it increasing readership? ..or simply justifying the extra pages I already feel guilty for loving reading a daily PAPER product, needed for all the extra advertising that didn't exist before? I could do with less advertising.
I'm dumbfounded and really disgraced by my WSJ. Who else reads the Journal? What other papers do you recommend that offer (relatively) unbiased news, less fluff, and good writing? What's my alternative? What papers do you read and why?
No comments:
Post a Comment