Well, almost everyone here is tendentious which means, according to Webster's "marked by a tendency in favor of a particular point of view." Outside the WSJ's editorial section, which is certainly tendentious, the paper is generally objective, imo. Not necessarily accurate, of course, but random errors caused by carelessness or the natural desire to create news or at least titilate readers, are not signs of tendentiousness, no matter how frequent or egregious they are.
With so many sources of raw information now available instantly and for free on the web, the job of journalists gets harder and harder. If they only report the "news" it's not fun or profitable, because by the time they print and distribute their paper, the content is long past being news. So more energy is spent connecting dots in ways that create controversy or at least human interest. Speaking of that, wasn't it reported that you were "very blatant" in promoting a plan "to manipulate share prices and create a short squeeze," a plan, moreover, conjectured as violating "securities laws against stock manipulation?" Or was that someone else with the same "screen name." Could have sworn I read about your underhanded scheme somewhere.......<vbg> |
