Last Saturday, at a university-sponsored event to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Harvard’s Committee on Degrees in Social Studies, a group of former students launched a research fund in honor of Martin Peretz, a former teacher in the program and the longtime editor in chief of the New Republic. After the event adjourned, the afternoon turned ugly as police had to protect Mr. Peretz while he walked across campus surrounded by a mob of screaming students.
Mr. Peretz admits that he wasn’t blameless in the controversy. On Sept. 4, blogging at the New Republic’s web site, he lamented that Muslims don’t respond more vigorously to acts of terrorism against their own people:
“Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims. And among those Muslims led by the Imam Rauf [of the proposed Cordoba House mosque] there is hardly one who has raised a fuss about the routine and random bloodshed that defines their brotherhood. So, yes, I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse.”
Has anybody else noticed the degree to which the editorial policy of the [i]Wall Street Journal[/i] has increasingly aligned with that of Fox News lately? I’m not necessarily referring just to this article, but to a trend that has increasingly appeared of the WSJ being not just pro-business (as it always has been, of course), but pushing a much broader platform of social conservatism not only on its editorial and opinion pages, but also in its news coverage. As this has happened, Americans have traded an important objective source of information for a partizan voice in conscious competition–not just commercial competition, but ideological competition–with the [i]New York Times[/i]. It is uncomfortably reminiscent of the rapid decline of [i]The Times[/i] of London after it became a part of the Murdoch empire.
Another one of those regular and constant cases of someone saying something “liberal” college campuses don’t want to hear and violence follows or police protection is needed. Maybe that is why the “liberal” mass media strains so hard to find even a mildly rude sign at a rally like Beck’s or tea party gatherings.
I’ve noticed and welcomed it. At least now we have a national paper that generally tends to have a conservative viewpoint rather than the lockstep leftist bias of the NY Times and the Washington Post.
What if I’m not interested in lockstep anything, but in objective reportage of just the facts?
Dale, I think you are being overly sensitive. WSJ is still pro-business as it has always been. The difference now is that the Obama Administration and Liberal Democrats are pushing an anti-business, class warfare agenda that WSJ finds to be bad for business and for the country’s economy. As far as I know the same people are running WSJ as before Murdoch bought it.
Then, Dale, you are increasingly out of luck. The “big sort” continues on. Moderates will, alas, have less and less place to stand in our society, just as they do in TEC. Rather than the fruit of wisdom, moderation today is understood as a luxury or a weakness.
The Dale, I’m afraid you’re destined to be disappointed. there is no such thing as objective reportage. All media have a bias, reflected as much in what they choose not to cover as it is in what they report. One simply has to choose the organ that is most compatible with one’s world view. For instance, when I’m in the UK I read the Telegraph and avoid the Guardian. I suppose if I were to try to name an “objective” publication, I might say the “Economist.” When I subscribed to it I was in roughly equal measure pleased and annoyed by its reportage. I’ve let it go in favor of National Review. If I want to learn what the left thinks, I simply have to pick up my local McClatchy paper or tune into NBC, CBS, or ABC.
7, you forgot NPR.
> 7, you forgot NPR.
Which for some odd reason I have to support with my taxes, never have quite figured that one out…
If I recall correctly, when the Republicans took over Congress a number of years ago there was a movement to defund public radio and TV. The argument was that since cable was now going great and there seemed to be a spot for every type of programming that had at least minimal support on both radio and TV it was the time to pull these off the public teat.
And ooooh did the cultured and “swell” crowd go bezerk. All those university and other culture organizations feared being on their own
financially in the media world.
And the Republicans caved at the onslaught–egged on by the commercial media (who loved the “liberal” slant of public radio and TV). They made Republicans look like invading barbarians out to destroy culture and intelligence.
The lead “cavers” were the country-club Republicans while the more populist Republicans–very few then–saw no need to fund what the cultural elite could fund.
Increasingly aligned? I’ve been reading the Journal since the 70’s and have not noticed any particular change in their editorial pages (or the fact that there is sometimes a disconnect between their news and editorial coverage). Now the Economist, they have changed.
I’m puzzled by some of the comments – but I do wonder about this:
What is it in our society that leads some, who once they have deemed a group (attractive to them) as some sort of underdog, they therefore become immune to any commentary save praise? IMHO, the story in context is that university culture seems more and more to be suppressing free speech, free throught, and the exchange of diverse ideas.
๐
I didn’t realize this was such a right leanig website.
#11 – exactly. I think Dale’s imagining things here. WSJ is as it has been for a long time. It was my dad’s paper of choice when I was a boy, thanks to its conservative slant.
BTW, WSJ has a fantastic iPad edition if you have one.
is the groupthink at Harvard really restricted to just Islam? I mean come on, it’s as pervasive as kudzu in southern Georgia….
Dale: Thanks for your cogent comments. The WSJ has certainly become the ‘Faux News’ of Wall Street…could it have anything to do with Rupert Murdoch’s recent takeover?? It’s really sad, because WSJ used to be top-notch and present the (wealthy) business-person’s viewpoint with competence and integrity.
I am moderate-to-liberal, politically, and really miss the informed, interesting commentary of thinking conservatives like Buckley. These days, it seems to be mud-slinging fools that have somehow taken over the Grand Old Party! Good grief! Evey my parents have left, in disgust!
(And CrisR: Be aware: This website leans QUITE heavily to the right, especially the comments section. Remember that it emanates from South Carolina. Folks like me stop in once in a while to shake ’em up. Good to see you here, too!! ๐ God bless y’all!!
Dale Rye, and others, this article was in the “opinion” section of the WSJ. It’s an opinion piece, and another in the same issue was written by the administration’s new “regulation czar.” The WSJ editorial policy has been conservative for many years, along with a commendable effort to print substantive opinions from other perspectives. Your complaints about news coverage should be directed at news coverage.
Hi Dale, et al. I am not all that thrilled with the Murdochization of the WSJ, though that was inevitable with the purchase–it is morphing into another McPaper, not quite as insipid as USAToday but heading there. Nonetheless, I’m not confident that “social conservative” is a correct diagnosis. They have for instance given a lot of column space to the presentation of “New Atheist” argumentation, with little formal rebuttal, that would not qualify for that designation.
Perhaps materialism is becoming the new conservatism, but I don’t think it’s there yet, nor likely to be achievable.
[blockquote]Folks like me stop in once in a while to shake รขโฌหem up. [/blockquote]
And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the [b]deeds of darkness[/b] and put on the armor of light. Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in [b]dissension[/b] and jealousy. Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the [b]desires of the sinful nature.[/b] ~ RO 13:11-14