As a 40 year subscriber to the WSJ, I have been astonished by the left turn the news section has taken in the last few years. Not sure what happened, or why they would abandon their spot as the one centrist major news outlet in America to jump on the anti-Trump bandwagon. The headlines and articles are almost comical in their silly takes or one-sided version of events. The editorial page is still center right, but lately their bleatings about TARIFFS!! are getting annoying.
I just dumped my WSJ subscription. It’s turned into a rag. I don’t trust it anymore.
Ashley coyly tells her boyfriend, who’s known to make a baby or two with a different woman or two, that’s she’s ovulating. The whole story is nauseating. She’s probably just pissed because she thought she’d be the one to land him.
Most men IMO expect the woman to be on birth control, or they use a condom. If someone is willingly sleeping around with no regard to getting pregnant, that’s sadly a poor choice by both involved. It’s even worse when women use abortion as a means of birth control or when a man thinks abortion is the answer.
“What kills us is not what we don’t know, but what we know that isn’t so.” Mark Twain
Decades ago, NPR published a research, which showed that outside of its editorial, WSJ was the most leftist publication bar none. Not even NPR and NYT came close.
Since then, I have been reading WSJ occasionally to educate myself in the ways of the left.
Can't help but to compare St Claire to Jordon Hudson. Both want the limelight, and Hudson seems better at exploiting Belicheck for her personal gain, and she didn't even get pregnant. But her price to pay is the optics of "dating" one repulsive looking old man.
The news in the WSJ has turned left for a specific reason: the reporters they are hiring. I came across two articles in the last few months and thinking I was reading the NYT, I looked up the people who write these articles. Politico most recently and other left wing rags in the past and the other was a former WaPo reporter again with several left wing rags in their past.
Evidently the editors have been changed and/or one of the sons is influencing the paper. A WSJ subscription isn’t cheap. If this continues, my cancellation will be forthcoming.
Remember the 2020 petition that 280 of the WSJ's reporters/staff signed complaining about "misinformation" in the opinion section? Why these wilting violets weren't put on a list for future layoffs, I'll never know - there's plenty of other reporters out there who'd jump to join the WSJ.
“What kills us is not what we don’t know, but what we know that isn’t so.” Mark Twain
Decades ago, NPR published a research, which showed that outside of its editorial, WSJ was the most leftist publication bar none. Not even NPR and NYT came close.
Have been reading WSJ occasionally to educate myself in the ways of the left.
A former 30 year subscriber over here,* and I absolutely agree.
I can't remember who wrote it, but he or she noted that reporters almost all now come from "top" universities rather than starting at less prestigious schools before working their way up from the overnight crime desk. The days of a Jimmy Breslin (dropped out of Long Island U.) or a Mike Royko (briefly attended Wright Junior College in Chicago) are over.
So the "reporters" we have now all come from the same educational class, and have the same narrow world view. That same article also noted that cub reporters traditionally don't make a decent wage, so only those who can get support from their parents can pursue the field - thus, they come from a wealthier background to begin with, and have the same luxury beliefs.
* I let my subscription lapse when I realized that my local public library offered free electronic access (look for something called ProQuest, which also offers e-access to Barron's and other periodicals). Even then, I read it mainly for personal finance, lifestyle, and arts coverage, which aren't too obnoxious - yet.
Also a longtime subscriber. I have come to believe WSJ has placed its bet on Trump failing spectacularly, and needing to be seen as siding with the winning team (the DemoProgUnionMedia cabal).
It's more complicated than that. The series "Succession" was loosely based on the Murdoch family and there is a lot of familial intrigue going on. There is one sort of conservative son of Rupert, Lachlan, but the rest of the family, James and several sisters are liberal. The word is that when Rupert who is 94 dies, despite wanting Lachlan to take over, the other siblings will force him out and turn FoxNews into MSNBC-lite and the WSJ into the WaPo. So, the news room, reading the tea leaves is already making a left turn ahead of the succession.
I used to subscribe to the WSJ for the opinion section, and then to use it under mulch in my yard. Even though they keep offering it to me dirt cheap, I can't bring myself to even use it for mulch anymore, let alone read it.
Yeah, another 40 year WSJ subscriber who no longer sees the value anywhere close to the subscription price, especially when you can get columns like this. Sash, thank you.
"left turn" is a slight understatement. I too, am a 40-plus year subscriber. Soon, my relationship with the once-august paper is over. I'll dearly miss James Freeman, though. No one else. The paper cannot be trusted any longer. It's trying to out-Times the Times. As LeftyMudersbach below explains, they've hired a hoard of Politico and WaPo reporters. The strategy: get Trump.
I dumped my 20+ year subscription 9 or so months ago, basically because of the news section, but also my growing distaste of Peggy Noonan. The Murdoch running things now is clearly no conservative, not even a centrist. Why the goal to turn your newspaper into a poor imitation of TNYT?
My opinion: Noonan represents the old Republican Party and its management of decline. In its time of Reagan, etc., there were successes, but in the long run the party got steamrolled over to end up with woke everywhere, pronouns, USAID corrupt funding, indoctrination universities, gender affirming care, billions of gov’t waste, etc. She is living in a time that no longer exists. Reading some of her columns I could not tell that she was a republican (and maybe she isn’t anymore). She is writing columns as if it’s still 1980. Her opinions are irrelevant to today’s Trump voters.
Peggy Noonan, cast as The Golden Girl of the Reagan Revolution, in time morphed into a mouthpiece for the interests of the DC Swamp. She's kind of like the female George Will. Another intellectual mediocrity raised to a high position for her nuanced subservience to the status quo. There are so many of them.
I too have been a subscriber to the WSJ since 1977 (48 yrs) Since Trump was elected their news section has raced to the bottom along with the NYT and all of the other MSM with nothing but narrative news smearing anyone who threatens the DC Swamp. The Editorial pages continued to resist but I can see the efforts of the Murdoch boys who are in control of the WSJ now. The Retirement of D. Henninger was a sign. Its just a matter of time before even the editorial pages will be unreadable.
Agree. I still get the weekend print edition but I’m on my last bit of patience. I barely read it anymore after scanning headlines; I don’t need to pay them for negative Trump opinions when those abound. But worst, when I do read articles, I’m not LEARNING as much as years past.
I'm a WSJ subscriber. I was more than a little surprised to see a large, front page article devoted to "The Tactics Elon Musk Uses to Manage His ‘Legion’ of Babies—and Their Mothers"
.
I noticed right away that the comment section has this note at the top: "NOTE: All comments on this story will be reviewed by a moderator before posting."
.
that's rare in fact I don't recall ever seeing it before. And they are working overtime.
--I posted a note that this topic seemed a bit odd for WSJ. Rejected.
--I posted a note wondering why no articles about President Joe Biden disowning illegitimate granddaughter. Rejected.
--I posted a note facetiously letting others know our comments are being fully vetted. Rejected.
--I posted a note pointing out our comments were being censored. Rejected.
.
.
how in the world is this front page, top banner "reporting".
Same WSJ that ignored the story of President Joe Biden's disowned granddaughter? That familial mistreatment by our elected President running for re-election perhaps warranted coverage.
Great piece, Sasha. I’m going to unsubscribe from WSJ and subscribe to you. Loved the take-down of both the “failing” WSJ and the insipid Ashley. Your personal story a beautiful one. Thanks for including it.
Fwiw, the WSJ will not allow any negative comments on that piece. It doesn’t matter how politely it’s written, no support of Musk allowed. Unbelievably disappointing.
YOU GO GIRL!! One of the best things you've ever written, and you've written a LOT of great stuff. From one strong, never-consider-me-a-victim woman to another, you never cease to amaze and inspire me. THANK YOU!
Sasha... you can see this, and many other paywalled articles by going to citizenfreepress.com. I just read the article and it reminded me of Batya Ungar-Sargan's recent X post knocking Elon. I guess it's topic du jour. When it comes to babies, they all (Elon and the women) pretty much disgust me. Because they are not thinking about the fact that children need two parents. I mostly raised two daughters as a single mom (though their dad has played a much lesser role) and would have preferred a traditional family like the one I was raised in. Without my dad's constant presence, my life would have missed out on so much of value.
and Ashley St Clair supposedly has another child that clearly she's not with the father of that child. Wonder how much she's getting from that baby daddy? She's 26! Two kids and single?!?! Like WTF?!
Sad to see the WSJ trip itself up. Noticed partisan articles creeping in to the paper a few years ago. Seems to be getting worse.
Don’t understand why they would throw away the trusted position they had achieved, especially because partisan newspapers are now a dime a dozen. Looks like we may be seeing a case of FAFO on the part of the Ruperts. They are killing their brand - their’e “Bud Lighting” themselves.
Sasha and the other women here did a better job than I ever could analyzing her so I will add that Elon should buy the WSJ and fire everyone there. Retire the name so people stop thinking it is a conservative voice.
As a 40 year subscriber to the WSJ, I have been astonished by the left turn the news section has taken in the last few years. Not sure what happened, or why they would abandon their spot as the one centrist major news outlet in America to jump on the anti-Trump bandwagon. The headlines and articles are almost comical in their silly takes or one-sided version of events. The editorial page is still center right, but lately their bleatings about TARIFFS!! are getting annoying.
I just dumped my WSJ subscription. It’s turned into a rag. I don’t trust it anymore.
Ashley coyly tells her boyfriend, who’s known to make a baby or two with a different woman or two, that’s she’s ovulating. The whole story is nauseating. She’s probably just pissed because she thought she’d be the one to land him.
I find it hard to believe a woman would actually say that to someone they barely know, but what the hey I guess some women would be that crass.
Especially when most men would either run out the door or to the drugstore to pile on the birth control! She wanted a baby Musk.
Most men IMO expect the woman to be on birth control, or they use a condom. If someone is willingly sleeping around with no regard to getting pregnant, that’s sadly a poor choice by both involved. It’s even worse when women use abortion as a means of birth control or when a man thinks abortion is the answer.
Smart woman.
What in the world, Ruth, is your comment about? How is it related to the discussion? 🤯
I was replying to Allison. Keep up
She is having mission creep but has a good point.
“What kills us is not what we don’t know, but what we know that isn’t so.” Mark Twain
Decades ago, NPR published a research, which showed that outside of its editorial, WSJ was the most leftist publication bar none. Not even NPR and NYT came close.
Since then, I have been reading WSJ occasionally to educate myself in the ways of the left.
Can't help but to compare St Claire to Jordon Hudson. Both want the limelight, and Hudson seems better at exploiting Belicheck for her personal gain, and she didn't even get pregnant. But her price to pay is the optics of "dating" one repulsive looking old man.
The news in the WSJ has turned left for a specific reason: the reporters they are hiring. I came across two articles in the last few months and thinking I was reading the NYT, I looked up the people who write these articles. Politico most recently and other left wing rags in the past and the other was a former WaPo reporter again with several left wing rags in their past.
Evidently the editors have been changed and/or one of the sons is influencing the paper. A WSJ subscription isn’t cheap. If this continues, my cancellation will be forthcoming.
Remember the 2020 petition that 280 of the WSJ's reporters/staff signed complaining about "misinformation" in the opinion section? Why these wilting violets weren't put on a list for future layoffs, I'll never know - there's plenty of other reporters out there who'd jump to join the WSJ.
Canceled my subscription months ago.
3-4 years ago for me. Couldn't justify the cost for the crazy.
“What kills us is not what we don’t know, but what we know that isn’t so.” Mark Twain
Decades ago, NPR published a research, which showed that outside of its editorial, WSJ was the most leftist publication bar none. Not even NPR and NYT came close.
Have been reading WSJ occasionally to educate myself in the ways of the left.
A former 30 year subscriber over here,* and I absolutely agree.
I can't remember who wrote it, but he or she noted that reporters almost all now come from "top" universities rather than starting at less prestigious schools before working their way up from the overnight crime desk. The days of a Jimmy Breslin (dropped out of Long Island U.) or a Mike Royko (briefly attended Wright Junior College in Chicago) are over.
So the "reporters" we have now all come from the same educational class, and have the same narrow world view. That same article also noted that cub reporters traditionally don't make a decent wage, so only those who can get support from their parents can pursue the field - thus, they come from a wealthier background to begin with, and have the same luxury beliefs.
* I let my subscription lapse when I realized that my local public library offered free electronic access (look for something called ProQuest, which also offers e-access to Barron's and other periodicals). Even then, I read it mainly for personal finance, lifestyle, and arts coverage, which aren't too obnoxious - yet.
Also a longtime subscriber. I have come to believe WSJ has placed its bet on Trump failing spectacularly, and needing to be seen as siding with the winning team (the DemoProgUnionMedia cabal).
It's more complicated than that. The series "Succession" was loosely based on the Murdoch family and there is a lot of familial intrigue going on. There is one sort of conservative son of Rupert, Lachlan, but the rest of the family, James and several sisters are liberal. The word is that when Rupert who is 94 dies, despite wanting Lachlan to take over, the other siblings will force him out and turn FoxNews into MSNBC-lite and the WSJ into the WaPo. So, the news room, reading the tea leaves is already making a left turn ahead of the succession.
adds up to a "sell" signal if I ever saw one
I used to subscribe to the WSJ for the opinion section, and then to use it under mulch in my yard. Even though they keep offering it to me dirt cheap, I can't bring myself to even use it for mulch anymore, let alone read it.
Yeah, another 40 year WSJ subscriber who no longer sees the value anywhere close to the subscription price, especially when you can get columns like this. Sash, thank you.
"left turn" is a slight understatement. I too, am a 40-plus year subscriber. Soon, my relationship with the once-august paper is over. I'll dearly miss James Freeman, though. No one else. The paper cannot be trusted any longer. It's trying to out-Times the Times. As LeftyMudersbach below explains, they've hired a hoard of Politico and WaPo reporters. The strategy: get Trump.
I dumped my 20+ year subscription 9 or so months ago, basically because of the news section, but also my growing distaste of Peggy Noonan. The Murdoch running things now is clearly no conservative, not even a centrist. Why the goal to turn your newspaper into a poor imitation of TNYT?
I agree. Years ago Peggy Noonan became insufferable. There were other editorial writers I liked, but I dropped my subscription anyway years ago.
My opinion: Noonan represents the old Republican Party and its management of decline. In its time of Reagan, etc., there were successes, but in the long run the party got steamrolled over to end up with woke everywhere, pronouns, USAID corrupt funding, indoctrination universities, gender affirming care, billions of gov’t waste, etc. She is living in a time that no longer exists. Reading some of her columns I could not tell that she was a republican (and maybe she isn’t anymore). She is writing columns as if it’s still 1980. Her opinions are irrelevant to today’s Trump voters.
Peggy Noonan, cast as The Golden Girl of the Reagan Revolution, in time morphed into a mouthpiece for the interests of the DC Swamp. She's kind of like the female George Will. Another intellectual mediocrity raised to a high position for her nuanced subservience to the status quo. There are so many of them.
Will's switch has really boosted his career. Is he even alive?
I too have been a subscriber to the WSJ since 1977 (48 yrs) Since Trump was elected their news section has raced to the bottom along with the NYT and all of the other MSM with nothing but narrative news smearing anyone who threatens the DC Swamp. The Editorial pages continued to resist but I can see the efforts of the Murdoch boys who are in control of the WSJ now. The Retirement of D. Henninger was a sign. Its just a matter of time before even the editorial pages will be unreadable.
Agree. I still get the weekend print edition but I’m on my last bit of patience. I barely read it anymore after scanning headlines; I don’t need to pay them for negative Trump opinions when those abound. But worst, when I do read articles, I’m not LEARNING as much as years past.
Yeah. I dumped my WSJ subscription a While back too. I miss their once even-handed reporting. “Just the facts” *sigh*
Yup that's why I unsubscribed. A mix of Substack, X and the Daily Wire is much more informative.
This, the rest of this, and ALL OF THIS IN ITS EPIC ENTIRETY!!! Beautifully said, too. Brava. (Your daughter is lucky, BTW.) :)
I'm a WSJ subscriber. I was more than a little surprised to see a large, front page article devoted to "The Tactics Elon Musk Uses to Manage His ‘Legion’ of Babies—and Their Mothers"
.
I noticed right away that the comment section has this note at the top: "NOTE: All comments on this story will be reviewed by a moderator before posting."
.
that's rare in fact I don't recall ever seeing it before. And they are working overtime.
--I posted a note that this topic seemed a bit odd for WSJ. Rejected.
--I posted a note wondering why no articles about President Joe Biden disowning illegitimate granddaughter. Rejected.
--I posted a note facetiously letting others know our comments are being fully vetted. Rejected.
--I posted a note pointing out our comments were being censored. Rejected.
.
.
how in the world is this front page, top banner "reporting".
Same WSJ that ignored the story of President Joe Biden's disowned granddaughter? That familial mistreatment by our elected President running for re-election perhaps warranted coverage.
.
disgusting double standards. disgusting censorship.
.
This is why I dropped my subscription. Their reporting is careening into Gawker territory.
Happened to me as well
Agreed! That newspaper and the times are worthy of toilet paper only
Geez, even Yahoo news doesn't delete comments about being censored.
Great piece, Sasha. I’m going to unsubscribe from WSJ and subscribe to you. Loved the take-down of both the “failing” WSJ and the insipid Ashley. Your personal story a beautiful one. Thanks for including it.
Fwiw, the WSJ will not allow any negative comments on that piece. It doesn’t matter how politely it’s written, no support of Musk allowed. Unbelievably disappointing.
Another amazing -- and well-deserved -- takedown. That no man could have delivered.
YOU GO GIRL!! One of the best things you've ever written, and you've written a LOT of great stuff. From one strong, never-consider-me-a-victim woman to another, you never cease to amaze and inspire me. THANK YOU!
You're a great writer Sasha, and great writing comes from great thinking.
Amen
Sasha... you can see this, and many other paywalled articles by going to citizenfreepress.com. I just read the article and it reminded me of Batya Ungar-Sargan's recent X post knocking Elon. I guess it's topic du jour. When it comes to babies, they all (Elon and the women) pretty much disgust me. Because they are not thinking about the fact that children need two parents. I mostly raised two daughters as a single mom (though their dad has played a much lesser role) and would have preferred a traditional family like the one I was raised in. Without my dad's constant presence, my life would have missed out on so much of value.
Thank you so much for this link.
..."a “woman-owned” business everyone on the Left approved of until they found out I voted for Trump."
Oh, so many gems in this essay. YAY.
and Ashley St Clair supposedly has another child that clearly she's not with the father of that child. Wonder how much she's getting from that baby daddy? She's 26! Two kids and single?!?! Like WTF?!
Sad to see the WSJ trip itself up. Noticed partisan articles creeping in to the paper a few years ago. Seems to be getting worse.
Don’t understand why they would throw away the trusted position they had achieved, especially because partisan newspapers are now a dime a dozen. Looks like we may be seeing a case of FAFO on the part of the Ruperts. They are killing their brand - their’e “Bud Lighting” themselves.
WSJ stopped being truthful and relevant years ago. Now, it appears it has degraded into a tabloid.
😂😂😂
The only thing that would have made this better is if you called St Clair a cum trough.
Legs wide open, indeed.
Okay, that was rude.....but funny!
😂 That’s a good one! My pregnant co-worker just bought a “Cum Dumpster” hat at a comedy show. 🤣 She wears it proudly.
WOW! That was awesome Sasha. Thank you.
Just woke up down here in Western Australia and read this post with my first coffee in hand. And was hooked by the clarity and honesty.
And I too have walked away from the Wall St Journal. Had a paid subscription for decades. Not anymore.
Sasha and the other women here did a better job than I ever could analyzing her so I will add that Elon should buy the WSJ and fire everyone there. Retire the name so people stop thinking it is a conservative voice.