WSJ on Demolitions

The media has finally picked up the erroneous demolitions story. But strangely enough, it’s the Wall Street Journal. I wonder why the local media hasn’t covered it? Or maybe they have and I’ve missed it.

The article is worth checking out just for their picture of Karen “Gadfly” Gadbois in the classic WSJ style:

Gadfly

The article mentions Karen’s Squandered Heritage blog but doesn’t provide a link or even the web address. But I guess most WSJ readers know how to use Google.

Update: I didn’t realize this story was on the front page. Wow. And if it is hidden behind a paywall, you can read the full text on Dangerblond’s blog.

10 Replies to “WSJ on Demolitions”

  1. The Journal rarely puts URLs in the article, so it’s nothing special here. Ironic, though, that the newest victim of Rupert’s acquisitions machine is the only paper to cover what some claim to be an acquisitive conspiracy.

  2. In certain aspects not that strange as the WSJ editorial stance predisposes them to favor stories about “takings” — the property rights issue of protecting people’s property from over-reaching government actions. It is one of these interesting ideas where liberal and conservative ideology get all tangled up around each other.

  3. The WSJ, at least in the past, has had a rep for keeping what’s on the editorial pages and what’s on the front pages completely separate. (I had a editor from there tell me, oh, about a decade ago that she was close to being a socialist, but no one ever gave her ideologically-oriented orders, and she would have been out the door otherwise.) For what it’s worth.

  4. Wow–it took five responses before anyone (namely celcus) even mentioned the real story (as B did). Enough with the nutbaggery about Rupert Murdoch. Sheesh. Take off the Michael Moore/Daily Kos-colored glasses for even a minute and open your freaking eyes. Not everything is part of a tidy script, folks.

  5. Garvey: I didn’t think it was engaging in any conspiracy theory, or even think I or the earlier poster was suggesting as much. Murdoch’s takeover has been mourned for precisely the sort of reasons I mentioned above, a mourning that eludes those read the WSJ editorial pages and think, Well, the paper was too the right of a Attila the Hun anyway, and presume the news pages were the same or somehow linked. But I don’t think there’s been enough time for Murdoch to have had much of an impact on the paper yet, or to put his own personal stamp on it, presuming that he ever does. I’m not even sure if the deal is closed, formally.

  6. Duffy’s a beautiful kid, he’s just into Riddle of Steel metaphors. Come out and play more, Duff! And maybe no one else posted about the local media because they knew it was going to be covered. I mean, Karen talks to people all the time if they’re quoting her, right?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.