Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

former9thward

(33,424 posts)

22. A lot of people read it.

Reply to bluboid (Reply #17)

Wed Jul 13, 2022, 10:25 PM

Jul 2022

It has the highest subscription of any newspaper in the U.S. Its international coverage is far superior to any other U.S. paper.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

42 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Wall Street Journal Editorial Board Makes Complete Asses of Themselves [View all] Towlie Jul 2022 OP

Condescending asses. betsuni Jul 2022 #1

Has there been a retraction issued by WSJ? duckworth969 Jul 2022 #2

Yes, here's an archive.today link to the Wall Street Journal's retraction Towlie Jul 2022 #5

Just now-7:51pm 13 July irisblue Jul 2022 #6

Yes, it IS paywalled. Here's the link: Towlie Jul 2022 #10

Huh, I went through the web addy on the tweet. I don't have a sub to WSJ irisblue Jul 2022 #12

Huh, I went through the web addy on the tweet. I don't have a sub to WSJ irisblue Jul 2022 #13

The Correction is Paywalled But not DoBotherMe Jul 2022 #16

"It appears..."??? dlk Jul 2022 #15

Is it just me or does that sound condescending? Farmer-Rick Jul 2022 #24

It appears President Biden is right? Appears?? FU WSJ. NoMoreRepugs Jul 2022 #26

Stupid asses. Someone should lose their job over the article. captain queeg Jul 2022 #3

That's what happens when you substitute right wing talking points for journalism Walleye Jul 2022 #4

Same as Gym Jordan. panader0 Jul 2022 #7

FUCK MURDOCH and his WSJ, and the FUCKING DEGENERATE republicans. If we don't win at the minimum JohnSJ Jul 2022 #8

the board are incompetent nazi shills. "...But we appreciate our obligation to correct" non-apology FreepFryer Jul 2022 #9

This child's pregnancy was confirmed by the Indiana gynecologist to whom she was referred... Princess Turandot Jul 2022 #11

They some ghoulish bastards uponit7771 Jul 2022 #14

ooo, the poor babies... bluboid Jul 2022 #17

A lot of people read it. former9thward Jul 2022 #22

A lot do read it, but NYTimes has more paid subscribers. spooky3 Jul 2022 #28

That can't be true. SergeStorms Jul 2022 #31

Hee hee! Nt spooky3 Jul 2022 #32

This site disagrees with you. former9thward Jul 2022 #33

I cited my sources, which are credible. It's not a matter of opinion. spooky3 Jul 2022 #34

So did I. former9thward Jul 2022 #35

With all due respect, your source is talking about websites. mahatmakanejeeves Jul 2022 #37

I do. I try to get my hands on a newsprint edition of the paper every week. mahatmakanejeeves Jul 2022 #40

The right assumes everyone operates like they do. They think to themselves, Gaugamela Jul 2022 #18

Fuck the WSJ! Trying to capitalize on a ten-year-old's tragedy. Martin68 Jul 2022 #19

'pears like they really stepped in it stopdiggin Jul 2022 #20

Perhaps they were hoping for graphic photos of the event Orrex Jul 2022 #21

The "J" is silent RainCaster Jul 2022 #23

Whenever I see WSJ Farmer-Rick Jul 2022 #25

Who the F* cares if she can't be identified? Laha Jul 2022 #27

That really got to me. crickets Jul 2022 #41

Agreed Laha Jul 2022 #42

Dear Murdoch Street Journal.... SergeStorms Jul 2022 #29

"the American people deserve better from their President" Ferrets are Cool Jul 2022 #30

The Wall Street Journal has added an editor's note to its editorial regarding the 10-year-old ... mahatmakanejeeves Jul 2022 #36

Oh, this is just the beginning gratuitous Jul 2022 #38

They're quite good at making asses of themselves. Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jul 2022 #39