How a family-owned newspaper became a mouthpiece for the world’s oligarchs.
Remember when The Wall Street Journal used to stand for something? It used to stand for laissez-faire, Adam Smith Capitalism. Free and open markets. A lightly regulated economy. A small but efficient Federal government. Original constitutionalism. Separation of Church and State. Balanced budgets. That was then. This is now. The Wall Street Journal is owned by Dow Jones & Company, which is a subsidiary of News Corp, which is controlled by Rupert Murdoch; and has been since 2007.
Now, the newspaper stands for whatever Rupert Murdoch says it stands for, which is usually what’s good for Rupert Murdoch, depending on which way the wind is blowing across the prow of Rupert’s ship. In a nutshell, Rupert and other Bilderberg types work for the implementation of the elitist One World Order. Others fitting this description would be Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg. As such, Rupert Murdoch is one of the self-selected few who decides what gets pumped into your living room at night through the TV set or what you read in the morning paper. He and his media products are essentially the mouth-piece. The oligarchy didn’t always exist. At least as far as the WSJ was concerned, business people stuck to business and only dabbled in the tawdry world of politics as a hobby. Now, it is a necessary part of doing business in the United States; regardless of political persuasion. You see, Wall Street is directly connected to Washington, D.C. It didn’t used to be. But it is now.
Previous to ownership by the Murdock Media Death Star, the WSJ was owned by the Bancroft family. They are a Boston based family who owned Dow Jones & Co / The WSJ for over 100 years. The editorial board had a free hand in what was then, the small niche market of finance. Previous to the Murdoch purchase, circulation was relatively small and confined to business people and those in the financial services industry. Its articles were focused on the technical parts of finance and the economy and were fairly dry reading. It was quaint – in a geeky, financial-quant sort of way – but at least you knew what you were getting.
The newspaper has changed considerably since being acquired by News Corp. It has added sections on Sports and Entertainment. It has added a section called “Mansion”. Subtle, eh? All of this is to appeal to a wider audience and indeed, circulation has climbed considerably. It is now the high-brow version of USA Today. While not exactly the same editorial approach as USA Today, they are creeping ever closer in similarity.
One example regarding public policy: Open borders, according to the WSJ, actually means no borders. The free flow of labor now means letting drug dealers and rapists in from Mexico as long as there are enough workers among them to pick the butter lettuce and baby corn for News Corp sybarites. In the debate about porous borders, the issue of national integrity and the importance of border control gets lost.
Another example on the cultural side: Jason Gay writing about Bruce Jenner (we refuse to dignify what Jenner did to himself by calling him Caitlyn) at an ESPY Awards dinner in a fawning piece (July 20, 2015) designed to use the former world’s greatest athlete’s past athletic achievements as cover for what is now a troubled soul. Just as a reminder, there is no power on earth that can change a man into a woman or vice versa. Can’t be done. People are hormonally and surgically altered to look like the opposite sex, but they are not changed into the opposite sex. This sort of thing would have never appeared in the old WSJ. But now it does, regardless of the depravity involved.
Providing bread and circuses to the masses; the Oligarch’s sin qua none. Instead of the corn dole, now it’s super cars, yachts, and booze; as long as it’s given the sheen of fine living and elegance. Big vocabularies and complex syntax, but the message is essentially geared towards conspicuous consumption for aspiring members of the upper middle class. In other words, it appeals to a certain income range but essentially caters to class envy. Class envy?!? Amongst the 1%er’s? Indeed, class envy, exactly like the Leftist New York Times. The WSJ just picks a different socioeconomic strata and uses material desire rather than guilt as the emotional lever.
Think you’re getting financial and political opinion based on objective measures of gold standard laissez-faire. Think again. The Wall Street Journal – making the world a better place for the uber-wealthy. But…please, please, please…don’t confuse the behavior of capitalists with Capitalism. Adam Smith is appalled by them too.