What’s better Than The Wall Street Journal?

What's better Than The Wall Street Journal? You know, I mean other than Chuck on NBC? And since Chuck is on hiatus due to those idiot writers…

How about a Wall Street Journal that's FREE?

I don't know if it's totally free yet, but I do know that as of today, a whole lot more content is available at no charge thanks to Rupert Murdoch.

That's the good news. The bad news is, they appear to be auto-refreshing it.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend


About tedwest

A longtime veteran of comedy and political forums, I decided that I needed a more restful venue because... well... I finally hate everybody. Except my wife that is... and my ex-wife.. and... no, that's about it. I lead about as simple a life as one can, preferring activities that include anything that doesn't involve going out and seeing YOU! And I particularly enjoy what I call "Get the Bitch" movies on Lifetime. You know the ones where the intended victim finally does something so incredibly stupid that she forfeits her right to live, and from that moment on you're rooting for the stalker. Of course, it rarely works out the way you want, but when it does, the feeling you get is... well, there's nothing else like it, other than, maybe, eating chocolate chip cookies. Oh, and I'm proudly anti-wildlife, both foreign and domestic, and anti-environment - especially foreign environments. I think Howard Stern put it best when he said, "If fifty percent of the population died tomorrow, I can live with that." And I feel the same about the other fifty percent, so together, we've pretty much got it all covered.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to What’s better Than The Wall Street Journal?

  1. Urban Lenny says:

    i used to have to pay for it when i was in school as part of the cost of my books for a particular class. so glad it's free now.

  2. TedWest says:

    OK, so Norm tells me your not the good guy I think you are? At least I think that's what he was saying because he spoke in a dialect I'm not totally familiar with.

  3. TedWest says:

    You'll be pleased to know that I didn't have to look at your link to know what you were referring to. Which reminds me, speaking of links, did you see any references to yesterday's anniversary?

  4. TedWest says:

    New Hampshire mountaineer says Hillary was inspiration
    Attrib: James Taranto

  5. X says:

    I've noticed a drop in quality since the Wall Street Journal sold its independence to Rupert Murdoch. Free is good on one level, but I am really disappointed in their reporting and writing now. I'd rather pay for the Journal of the past than read this crap for free. Oh well….

  6. TedWest says:

    I don't know the difference, since I'd never pay for it. In fact, there's almost nothing worth paying for anymore…

  7. X says:

    I think with regards to media, due to the influence of the internet, we expect it for free. Rupert Murdoch noticed this, and mentioned it as one of the reasons behind the purchase of MySpace. I don't like him, but he certainly is an interesting guy. I respect his talent for deal making, and recognizing value. I'm sure he'd be able to out haggle me – which is a distinction I give few. I am proud of my ability to negotiate low prices.

  8. TedWest says:

    So then why do you not like him?

  9. X says:

    The quality of the media that he controls is very very low.

  10. TedWest says:

    Oh OK, I didn't realize you were joking at first. Because I'm sure you know that Fox News is the most balanced according to a recent study, and the New York Post has the best business section and editorial writers around. Are there any studies that document your claim?

  11. I'll take Rupert Murdoch's media over CBS and Eric Severide anytime.

  12. X says:

    Ted,"Balanced" can mean many things, but it does not mean that Fox is free of a strong conservative bias. What Balanced means in the context of Fox is that from Fox's perspective the content of their media includes giving air time acknowledgement to view points from across the political spectrum. The Conservative is typically lionized however, and the Liberal almost universally demonized. So yes, it is balanced in that they give air time to both, but then whenever a well educate liberal disagrees with a Fox talking head suddenly the head has run out of time. That is how you can have balanced news with a strong conservative bias. Equal airtime, but entirely different spin on each "camp".It is entertaining, but how Fox can be seen as anything other than Tabloid television is beyond me.Zak,I don't know much about the state of CBS these days. But given that Murdoch's media is best known (and admitted by Murdoch) for the likes of the Page Three Girl and reality television, your endorsement is incapable of anything more than damning Fox with faint praise. Because if CBS has sunk that low, it does not mean that Fox has raised the bar.

  13. TedWest says:

    I confess that I don't know how the study was conducted, so I'm not able to to make any statement about the context of "balanced," and by the same token, you are merely speculating in your assessment.
    For example, you see Fox as conservatively biased, but it could be that they are merely biased toward reason, logic, morals, ethics, decency, values, principles, America, what's right, what's fair, what makes economic sense,… you get the idea, and since such things generally overlap conservative concepts infinitely more often than liberal concepts, it would be easy to mistake that for conservative bias.
    And since I have yet to find a rational liberal, it may be that Fox is balanced in the best sense of the word, and that people on your side are simply incapable of seeing that. I mean I've written them several times and demanded that they get rid of that ridiculous expression "Fair and balanced," and replace it with "fair and accurate," and then have guest on who act accordingly. I dare say that then, a liberal sighting on the network would be a legal but rare event.
    So while I would agree about who is usually lionized and demonized, it's illogical to say that reflects a conservative bias. In fact, I often find myself screaming at Fox about "how dare you put that filth on my screen," and I hasten to add that it's almost always, but not exclusively liberals I'm referring to.
    And as you know, there is no one more objective than I – at least no one you're likely to be talking to, if you'll forgive me for being presumptive.
    But now you need to stop with the generalities and argue a specific, because maybe you saw something I didn't?
    Also, this is already getting off track (though I can't think of a better place than here for such a thing), so I would simply ask that if Murdoch's properties are as inferior as you say, I'm certainly not wedded to any one of them, and I would be delighted and indebted if you'd be kind enough to steer me toward a more informative and reliably objective source?
    I don't think it serves a purpose to singe out one ultra- liberal outfit, if only because when you start down that road, it could be a very long trip.

  14. X says:

    Ted,we need not go on if you have admitted this:"So while I would agree about who is usually lionized and demonized,
    it's illogical to say that reflects a conservative bias. In fact, I
    often find myself screaming at Fox about "how dare you put that filth
    on my screen," and I hasten to add that it's almost always, but not
    exclusively liberals I'm referring to."A news source that consistently demonizes one class of views while lionizing the opposition view point is by definition a biased news source regardless of which view you happen to agree with most of the time. Full stop.Ted, I don't have the time to get into this more. (To quote the most often used cop out on Fox news.) If you disagree with the above we'll merely have to leave this in disagreement. I don't feel like whipping a dead horse as this cart rolls further off topic.I am sorry for not being around more often. I'm just too busy. My life is taking me away from Vox.But should this be our last communication (unlikely)… I tip my hat to your last comment to Zak. Good stuff.

  15. TedWest says:

    Regardless of your reasons, that's not the end simply because you want it to be, but anything that takes you away from all this is, most likely, a good thing. now this:
    You didn't answer my request for a better source, and I would think you'd have been anxious to do so if you had one you were proud of. So I must assume that for all its faults, and I'd agree they are many (but different from yours) Fox remains king. Don't assume I'm happy about that, since I don't like most of their higher profile hosts.
    But then you said this:
    "A news source that consistently demonizes one class of views while lionizing the opposition view point is by definition a biased news source regardless of which view you happen to agree with most of the time."
    First off, it's not the source, it's done by individuals, and I would say that it starts with Neil Cavuto who, himself, tries very hard to not only accommodate liberals, but he allows them so much time to prevent their cases that I nearly have a stroke a day. But then he ends up deriding them, I admit, but in his defense, it's always with more grace and courtesy than they deserve (You do realize that no liberal point can be argued rationally, don't you)
    But to your bigger point I'd say this: it's only bias if both sides- have valid points-. I mean, you must remember times when your child took a POV that was preposterous and told you how unfair you were for not allowing him to have his way? – So you see what I'm saying right – that liberals are worse than children.
    And I can provide you with a prime example right here on Vox if you'd like.
    And how responsible would Fox be if it were to give "balance" to that? So liberals go everywhere else and throw their tantrums, and they even do it occasionally on Fox too, but simply because people on the network chastise them for their lack of ability and their extreme lack discipline, that is not, in itself, a case for bias. I mean, it is bias, but not in the sense you'd like – it's in the sense of sense.
    All points of view are not created equal, you know.
    And now the case can be closed if you'd like.

  16. Jeff D says:

    Good times. I let my subscription to the Journal lapse when I was overseas and have missed having all that content available. They'll definitely get more pageviews for me.

  17. Jeff D says:

    I've always thought the whole "liberal bias' thing was overblown. If I know about the bias, I can still read the source and adjust my perspective accordingly to get the information I want.

  18. TedWest says:

    Well, Jeff, that's all well and good, and I agree with you up to the point you've taken it, but there are problems. Like do you realize you haven't covered every contingency?
    For example, if you know a source is biased, would you want to make that your go-to news source if you had an alternative? Not only do you have to make allowances for and compensate for the bias, but you have to be conscious of the bias, which brings me to my second point:
    What if you don't know they're biased? What if they pose as objective source as certainly the big three nets do, and you're just there to listen to the news and don't even realize that what you're hearing has been slanted?
    You know, Scio presented an example of the grossest sort of bias a few days ago, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you totally and completely… uh… missed it.
    So if I wanted to make it personal, which I so don't, I might ask, wouldn't you, if you were a thinking man, now have to question your own innate ability to compensate?
    And finally, and perhaps most important, what if it's bias by exclusion? in other words, would you have watched Pravda and made your adjustments? It's the same for all the nets except for Fox – they simply exclude what they don't want you to consider, and Fox may be guilty at times as well, I can't say, since I don't watch all that much of it, but I can say that I have yet to find anything as objective as Brit Hume's Special Report.
    So since bias takes a number of forms, and the LNM use everyone of them all day, everyday, and the viewer has to be aware of what's happening to even begin to adjust and then work hard to stay aware (probably by watching Fox for comparison), why not just watch Fox and avoid all the nuisance?

  19. It's your responsibility to educate your self and think for yourself.
    I consider the CBS news organization the sleaziest most dishonest with an anti-ant-communist bias. In the 1960's Eric Severide was one of those intellectuals who was very snobby and condescended to the audience especially conservatives.
    If you want neutrality, watch C-Span.

  20. Jeff D says:

    Was the poster on that thread who said the founder of Breibart was a noted conservative commentator wrong? Do we still include them in the LNM if that's the case?"Liberal bias" has, at this point, become a self-fulfilling prophecy for a lot of people. They expect to see it, so they do see it whether or not its real. I get my news from multiple sources, Fox amongst them. The spin from all sources (including Fox) sticks out more that way. A side note. I've noticed a lot of my conservative friends now refer to Barack Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama." I wonder if the conservative pundits are offering this up as the latest spin. A while back I started seeing illegal immigrants referred to as "illegal invaders" but that kinda died off. This one is more catchy, so it might stick.

  21. Barack Hussein Obama is his full name is it not? So how is that inaccurate? You might want to look into Sen. Obama's background before you decide whether he is suitable or not to become President of the United States.

  22. TedWest says:

    You may not want to be labeled a liberal, but I swear, if you had to choose…
    I say that because you just did what all good liberals do – they ignore that with which they do not wish to deal. And the reason they don't is because they can't.
    Now I'm not accusing you of that, because you said you get your news from various sources, but you did miss the horrible bias in that news report, and I don't know what sort of news service that is, but I don't believe it's like Reuters and the AP in that they are more a compiler of news – like Drudge rather than an actual news service (I could be wrong), and the reporter was British with a definite liberal bias so I don't know what that woman's observation had to do with anything, but perhaps you could enlighten me?
    All I saw (But chose not to deal with because it was Scio's blog and her observation was worthless) was that the woman had three, count 'em, names – the liberal woman's desperate quest for gravitas, and if you dropped the middle part as you should, all I can say is, what's left, and I mean that literally and ideologically, was amusing… at least to me.
    Now I must add that I'm getting tired of answering people in a thoughtful and detailed way and then I getting little back, and I say that about liberals and conservatives alike.
    The use of Barry's full name is legitimate if obvious, and rumors keep swirling that he has ties that haven't been divulged. but I think it's a distraction because people should be focusing on what he says that should preclude him from running, much less being nominated, such as his frivolous desire to invade Pakistan, and his apparent real willingness to allow a bloodbath in Iraq, to name just two.
    But as with all things liberal, it doesn't really matter much what one of their number says or does, only that he is one of them, and it does trouble me that you'd even be concerned about Obama when all that matters is that he not be elected.
    And I never saw the term "illegal invaders" used by anyone… other than you, but since I'm sure you did, I'm pleased to be able to tell you how stupid I think it is, and had I seen other conservatives bandying it about, I should likely attempt to distance myself from them with alacrity.
    But now are you sure they were conservatives, of merely saying they were? I ask that in all sincerity because I haven't seen too many real ones in the wild.

  23. Jeff D says:

    Zak, I have no intention of voting for Obama or any Democratic candidate. As I said, it's spin and nothing more. I never said it wasn't accurate, but that's not the point. When I see the above-mentioned people mentioning other candidates without using their middle names the intent is quite clear and, in my opinion, silly and borderline racist.

  24. Jeff D says:

    Ted, you make a good point on those conservatives I mention. Almost all of them still defend the Bush presidency, which probably automatically excludes them from being considered conservatives.And I agree about Obama. One doesn't need spin or trying to associate him with a certain unlamented Iraqi dictator because they share a name to disqualify him as a legitimate candidate for President. I will say that the two sentences you and Scio mentioned jumped out at me as the likely source of bias. I guess they are the best sort of bias/innuendo, as they both contain a substantial dose of truth.

  25. TedWest says:

    Jeff Hussein Davis,
    It just dawned on me that you're Patty's Dad!?!
    Was it you who said we're probably not as far apart as it might seem? because it sure wasn't I, ha-ha.
    Seriously, I see that you have legitimate gripes, and especially about conservatives, they are ones I've repeated over and over. They are as blind as any liberals they decry. The only reason I don't come down on them harder and more often is that they share many of my values, which they didn't get from me, I hasten to add.
    On the other hand, I would have to encounter these pious louts in a moment of real need because I feel they'd be the first to ask why I hadn't made enough to prepare for such an emergency.
    So pick a day, and we'll spend the whole time bashing conservatives.
    But while we're on this, I'd like to say something that has struck me as odd of a long time…
    have you noticed that whenever someone gets pregnant in a movie and they are conflicted about keeping the baby, that it is never just a simple, easy, cut and dried decision. And that 99% of the time they have the baby, and that on that rare occasion they don't, they feel ripped apart emotionally? And yet the people who made the movie are very likely ones who demand that America remains probably the only country that allows unrestricted abortion right up to the moment of birth?
    As for Obama, I used his middle name early on, but I quit because it obscured the real issues I had with him. Besides, I don't have anything against good and decent Muslims, I just don't know how you know when you've found one. I mean, we don't want the test to be in the Oval Office, do we? I wouldn't even trust Muhammad Ali. He's beloved as a boxer, but don't run for high office unless maybe you change your name to something like, say, Cassius

  26. Jeff D says:

    Aside for the fact that Obama isn't a Muslim, as you say we're probably on the same page here. That said, a quick look at his church's web site raises many, many questions that might even be more disturbing than if he was a good and decent Muslim. Mercifully my wife only requires a chick flick out of me once or twice a year, so I'm spares most of the movies you mention. God bless her…

  27. I'd vote for a Democrat if I could find one that wasn't a Statist who wanted to create a "Heaven on Earth" by destroying individualism and transfering private property to the government sector of society. I think that Grover Cleveland was the last one of this kind.

  28. Jeff D says:

    Zak, the problem is that most of the Republicans aren't much different. W presided over the biggest expansion of the welfare state in decades.

  29. TedWest says:

    Zak & Jeff,
    What a difference a day make!
    As the racism among Democrats threatens to boil over, Sean Hannity reminded me today of something much wore than conservative forum-goers playing up the fact that Hussein is Obama's middle name – it's the fabulous dirtbag, Bob Kerry doing it, not in a lowly forum that only conservatives read, but right to the press in his endorsement of another fabulous dirtbag, Hillary!?! Let's revisit it, shall we"

    "It's probably not something that appeals to him, but I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim. There's a billion people on the planet that are Muslims, and I think that experience is a big deal."
    You see, Jeff, there are no better bigots than liberals.
    Kerrey made it a central point to emphasize that it was "Barack Hussein Obama," and when he was later questioned about the dubious purpose of his having done that, Kerrey said that he meant it only in the nicest sense – as he used it again!
    And Jeff, as I said, we don't know that Obama isn't a "closet Muslim." That's not to say that he is a member of the "religion," which I put in quotes since it is a poor excuse for one, but we don't know what his sympathies are since papa is a Muslim as well as a rolling stone.
    And about chick flicks, I LOVE THEM! I start laughing when the woman cries, and as I say in my profile, I especially love the terrorized chick films which always reach a point where the woman is so stupid, weak or whiny that you start to cheer out loud for the stalker. And I must say, on those rare occasions where a woman is a strong and sympathetic figure.. well, I like those too.
    As an aside, I always yell at the wife at the moment where the woman is holding the guy at gunpoint and then starts pleading with him to leave her alone, "Goddamnit, if you pull a gun, YOU USE IT!"
    Hey Zak,
    Jeff already got the capitalism lecture by private message, which I fully expected would blow him away, but he's nothing if not a resilient good sport.
    But about capitalism, Mark Steyn has a beautiful piece out today…

  30. Jeff D says:

    By all accounts neither of his parents was terribly religious. Whenever I think chick flicks I think "As Good As It Gets" when a female fan asks Nicholson's character how he portrays women so perfectly. "I think of a man, then I take away reason and accountability."And I agree, if you draw you damned well better be ready to shoot. The time for talking is long since gone.

  31. Jeff D says:

    As for Steyn's piece, I don't think he could have picked a worse industry to spark a discussion about capitalistic innovation. The fact that it took that incident (kids turning down free music on CD) for the execs to get it should point that out fairly clearly. EMI and the other big firms formed the RIAA, which sues people for not only downloading music, but for ripping CDs that they bought into digital formats. Agents of change, my ass. I understand he picked the industry only to start a discussion of this whole "candidate of change" garbage, but jeez man show that you actually understand something about capitalism and pick an industry that accurately reflects the benefits of destructive capitalism. Most any industry centered in Silicon Valley would do.

  32. TedWest says:

    "the benefits of destructive capitalism"
    I'm not sure I understand you… did you realize that Steyn using the music industry as an example of what happens when you fight innovation?
    Btw, I was and still am furious that they ruined Napster and other free services. I was exposed to music I didn't know existed. I can understand their wanting to protect newer releases, but older music should be in the public domain since, for example, there's every bit as much chance than an old group will make more profit from a renewed demand for public appearances than they ever would from a few album sales.
    It should be handled like a sports draft for anew franchise – they get to protect som many songs, and the rest is up for grabs.

  33. Songs are private property, unless it's a Steven Foster song that long ago went into public domain, and the owners have rights. Now I do think that it's vindictive that I can't make a backup copy and copies for personal use without being sued. But why should I be able to load all my CDs on a server and allow every college student in America to download the music free? This is stealing if you ask me. I have friends who are struggling muscians and talent alone doesn't make you a commerical success. It's sad that Rod Stewart can croak out some torch songs and out sell real talent like Andy Bey, Billy Extine, Jonny Hartman, Sarah Vaughn, etc. There's no accounting for taste- just for royalties.

  34. TedWest says:

    Sorry, but copyright laws have been extended and then extended again – and then broadened. Under old copyright law, most of the music in question would be in the public domain. So the music industry deserves whatever it gets, unless it's success.
    As for individual artists, the got what they expected to get when the songs were released, now it's just legislated gravy.But your words were extremely familiar to me because many years ago, a good friend had a decent band which was struggling to get a contract, and his words of complaint were very similar to your – he asked rhetorically, "Why should Neil Sedaka get a second career when we're good and can't get any attention?"
    The answer: I heard him, and he wasn't that good, so you might want to listen to your friends with a more critical ear?!?
    Although I'd agree that it's sad all on its own that Rod Stewart can peddle that crap – I wouldn't even want to "steal" it.

  35. We agree about the absurd length of time that copyrights have been extended- due to the music industry's lobbying power. Politics trumps common sense.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s