The thrust of your comments about stories here is that if a Times or Post Journalist wrote it, it is true, (unless, of course, you agree with it.) otherwise you don't trust it. Come On!
Nope. The NYTimes and the Post and, by the way, The Wall Street Journal regular journalistic staff, all practice serious journalism (and, I assume there are other places in the country that do so as well), which is to say they check their sources carefully, try to get the stories right.
However, a website put together by the WSJ editorial page people might be good for opinion; I read the editorial page regularly, sometimes for laughs, sometimes because I find something interesting to read. But the range of opinions is typically much narrower than the parallel pages in the NYTimes or the Post.
And I've always found their attention to getting the story right best personified by the now retired editorial director of that staff who kept insisting that Vince Foster was murdered well after, even Ken Starr decided it was not so.
We'll see if the new editorial director does a better job. A bit too early to tell. I have, however, seen no serious broadening of the range of opinions. |
