WSJ Op-Ed Pages

Reader comment on: Read It Here First

Submitted by J. Johnson (United States), Apr 23, 2010 11:11

This walk-back by the WSJ on the Whitacre Whopper is refreshing. Usually, the Journal editors, especially the editorial page editors, just ignore the errors they publish, even when those errors, in retrospect, make the Journal look truly stupid. At least the liberal N.Y. Times and the liberal Washington Post have enough respect for their readers that they have ombudsmen on their payrolls who can, and often do, take those papers to task for their sins. Alas, the WSJ is just downright cowardly in this respect. The presence of an ombudsman not only can serve the useful purpose of correcting already-published errors, but also of keeping reporters and editors, prior to publication, more alert to the possibility that, if they screw up, they might be called out for it, usually by name. While its probably true that the ombudsmen at the NYT and the Post are not two of the sharpest knives in the drawer, their presence oftentimes give the papers' readers a way to express their dissatisfaction at the papers' content that the WSJ apparently could not care less about. The WSJ Whopper that the enormous run up in crude oil prices two years ago was a simply a result of supply and demand market forces at work, rather than manket manipulation by Goldman and others, is the sort of thing the Journal gets away with because they have nobody on staff to challenge them when data and facts get in the way of their economic and political ideology.

Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.

Other reader comments on this item

Title By Date
⇒ WSJ Op-Ed Pages [249 words]J. JohnsonApr 23, 2010 11:11
What he said is probably technically true but not the whole truth. [43 words]LyleApr 22, 2010 22:14

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to WSJ Op-Ed Pages by J. Johnson

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.