RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2120Goal: $3500

Wall Street Journal

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
You gotta spin it to win it
Icon media.svg
Stop the presses!
We want pictures
of Spider-Man!
Extra! Extra!
If I were to create a list of questions to ask potential managers of my money, one of them would be: “Do you read the WSJ OpEds?” If the answer were yes, I would not walk but run in the opposite direction.
—Barry Ritholtz[1]

The Wall Street Journal is an esteemed, respected newspaper (ha!) owned by the Dow Jones Corporation, which focuses on business and financial market news. The tone is dry and respectful, and they don't have a comics page (possibly because the op-eds are enough of a joke already).

Anyone interested in economics has pretty much given up on WSJ. They used to have a decent mix of free and paid content, but now even the real-time economics blog is paid.


Since Rupert Murdoch's purchase of the WSJ in 2007, however, many to the left of wingnut have noticed its declining editorial standards:

The pandering has (predictably) made the comments section hilariously wingnutty and should be avoided at all costs.

Actually, it's about ethics in trolling minorities[edit]

When the paper accused PewDiePie of promoting or normalizing Nazi rhetoric, they received backlash from much of the YouTube community. This included reactionaries longing for a comeback of Gamergate and also dickholes like misogynist Maddox, Libertarian Phillip de Franco, and alt-right pandering Ethan Klein. PewDiePie lost his Disney sponsorship (and his mind) as a result.

See also[edit]

External links[edit]


  1. Having a noted medical non-expert (in fact, a noted "expert" at promoting medical woo) like Suzanne Somers write (badly) about the economics of the Affordable Care Act was part of a blatant appeal to celebrity the WSJ was trying in the early-mid 2010s, in a clear sign of a decline in its rigor. Around this time period, the WSJ drafted many famous entertainers (such as Pat SajeckWikipedia and Morgan FairchildWikipedia among others) to write on financial and political topics that they were way out of their depth on. Bizarrely, this was often done under the special report title "The Experts"[2]