For all those present who subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, I would suggest you look into a trial subscription to Investor's Business Daily. All financial coverage is at least as good (I'd say better) and editorials/reporting are considerably more in line with what I believe everyone on this board would like to see more of.
I took WSJ for around 10-15 years, took a trial subscription to IBD around 5 years ago simply for breadth. At the time it covered financial news only, had no editorial staff, but I liked it enough to continue both subscriptions. Soon after, IBD began an editorial page and expansion, and when my subscription to WSJ expired a year or so later I didn't bother to renew, I had no further use for it. Try it, you'll like it! No, I don't work for them.
Some recent editorials so closely follow threads here that it's scary. A recent example was a lengthy coverage of the "drug war" vs our loss of individual liberties to same. Another example many have probably heard of elsewhere is the press party where Clinton got furious at a reporter for questioning him about campaign contribution violations, screamed at him and had him permanently ejected. I saw that reported several places, but the reporter was from IBD.
While their editorials and reporting are most often pretty well balanced, they make no such claim. The paper has stated clearly SEVERAL times that you can get one side of any story through any TV news, newspaper, or news magazine since everybody else seems to print/cover only that side, and therefore they feel an obligation to insure that the OTHER side is told, and make no claim that every single story is going to be balanced, since editorial space is limited.
Overall, I find IBD to be a strong supporter of Constitutional rights and American liberties, WSJ to be mostly a mirror of other media trash with more financial news.
Support? Disagreement? Fire away.
[This message has been edited by Larry P. (edited October 21, 1999).]
I took WSJ for around 10-15 years, took a trial subscription to IBD around 5 years ago simply for breadth. At the time it covered financial news only, had no editorial staff, but I liked it enough to continue both subscriptions. Soon after, IBD began an editorial page and expansion, and when my subscription to WSJ expired a year or so later I didn't bother to renew, I had no further use for it. Try it, you'll like it! No, I don't work for them.
Some recent editorials so closely follow threads here that it's scary. A recent example was a lengthy coverage of the "drug war" vs our loss of individual liberties to same. Another example many have probably heard of elsewhere is the press party where Clinton got furious at a reporter for questioning him about campaign contribution violations, screamed at him and had him permanently ejected. I saw that reported several places, but the reporter was from IBD.
While their editorials and reporting are most often pretty well balanced, they make no such claim. The paper has stated clearly SEVERAL times that you can get one side of any story through any TV news, newspaper, or news magazine since everybody else seems to print/cover only that side, and therefore they feel an obligation to insure that the OTHER side is told, and make no claim that every single story is going to be balanced, since editorial space is limited.
Overall, I find IBD to be a strong supporter of Constitutional rights and American liberties, WSJ to be mostly a mirror of other media trash with more financial news.
Support? Disagreement? Fire away.
[This message has been edited by Larry P. (edited October 21, 1999).]