Wall Street Journal caught in front-page lie

[Quantum Windbag]

When I see the WSJ's retraction I'll believe it was an honest mistake.

What should they retract?

From your link.

But while Certner and other AARP officials scrambled to distance themselves from the idea of cuts now, they did not dispute another major tenet of the story — that AARP recognizes benefit cuts in Social Security may be unavoidable in the future. But it wasn't something the organization wanted to see highlighted on the front page of a major newspaper.

Your only problem is the WSJ reported on something in a way the AARP did not want them to, by making it a front page story. Since they focus on business news, that was a legitimate decision.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When I see the WSJ's retraction I'll believe it was an honest mistake.

How about the NYT's, ABC News', and CNN's?

The WSJ has a rightwing editorial policy; the NYT has a leftwing one. Neither publication makes any bones about it, and I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with (and the Times has been guilty of it a lot recently) is letting bits of editorialization seep into the news articles. It would be naive to think that the Journal honchos don't want to influence the debt ceiling "debate."

That hotbed of of radical fundy rethugs, NPR, is lying, too: For AARP, A 'Monumental' Shift On Social Security? : NPR

That article doesn't prove your point: it's the one I referenced in the OP.

The only people that think the WSJ is right wing are the idiotic left wingers who do not read it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Looks like they, like the NYT, are also letting their editorial policy steer their journalism.

Seems the Journal's cyberstaff has pulled this story already and trying to pretend it never existed.

For decades, AARP — the nation's largest advocacy group for seniors — has been viewed as the most powerful defender of Social Security. As a result, any hint that the organization might entertain benefit cuts would be seen as an abrupt about-face.

But that's precisely what happened a few days ago, when a front page story in the Wall Street Journal proclaimed that the organization had dropped its longstanding opposition to cutting Social Security benefits.

Almost as soon as the story appeared, AARP officials called it inaccurate and said it misconstrued the organization's position. There had been no change in policy, they said.

But what really rankled David Certner, the organization's legislative policy director, was the timing of the story. It appeared just as negotiations on raising the federal debt ceiling were kicking into high gear. And Certner says it left the impression that AARP would not oppose benefit cuts as part of the effort to reduce the deficit.

Source

they pulled the article?

I found it right here...

AARP Pivots on Social Security Benefit Cut - WSJ.com

Don't confuse the issue with facts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

good what? where's YOUR retraction, eh?

He just did it, moron.

Here's the real AARP position:

AARP Has Not Changed Its Position on Social Security - AARP.org

Getting lippy again eh? I don't see a retraction, you see this;

Good as in "I'm relieved to know that it's not the coverup I first suspected."

When the news cycle is as fast as it now is, pundits like me will step in it every once in a while. .

is a retraction ( or mea culpa, I won't split hairs) and, since it came AFTER I requested it, I guess that makes you a jackass, but well, getting owned as many times as you manage it week in week out, I guess you need an outlet.

have a great day eh?

He has to retract that he saw it was taken down if he saw it was taken down?

Are you mentally handicapped?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I agree it may be ironic, but having blinders on is prerequisite fo any partisan, left or right.

Which is why maintaining an open mind is supposed to be a virtue.

CG is a troll. Is that a virtue?

"Troll" does NOT mean "someone who posts things that hurt leftists' feelings".

I was referring to her appearance.

 

[Trajan]

He just did it, moron.

Here's the real AARP position:

AARP Has Not Changed Its Position on Social Security - AARP.org

Getting lippy again eh? I don't see a retraction, you see this;

Good as in "I'm relieved to know that it's not the coverup I first suspected."

When the news cycle is as fast as it now is, pundits like me will step in it every once in a while. .

is a retraction ( or mea culpa, I won't split hairs) and, since it came AFTER I requested it, I guess that makes you a jackass, but well, getting owned as many times as you manage it week in week out, I guess you need an outlet.

have a great day eh?

He has to retract that he saw it was taken down if he saw it was taken down?

Are you mentally handicapped?

are you using narcotics? no, really? Smoking weed? or hash?

get help dude, seriously.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Good. For some reason it wasn't showing up when I searched for it.

good what? where's YOUR retraction, eh?

Good as in "I'm relieved to know that it's not the coverup I first suspected."

When the news cycle is as fast as it now is, pundits like me will step in it every once in a while. To me, that's a small price to pay compared to just standing on the sidelines and heckling like some flame zone reject.

What?

That story is over a week old. The problem here is not the news curve, it is your pretensions.

 

[elvis]

Getting lippy again eh? I don't see a retraction, you see this;




is a retraction ( or mea culpa, I won't split hairs) and, since it came AFTER I requested it, I guess that makes you a jackass, but well, getting owned as many times as you manage it week in week out, I guess you need an outlet.

have a great day eh?

He has to retract that he saw it was taken down if he saw it was taken down?

Are you mentally handicapped?

are you using narcotics? no, really? Smoking weed? or hash?

get help dude, seriously.

No. NYcuminhisrear is stupid without using narcotics.

 

[Foxfyre]

The WSJ news pages have always tilted left of center ever since I've been reading the WSJ which is a loooooong time now. The editorial pages are pretty right of center.

Murdoch has not made any changes in the slant of either the news pages or the editorial pages. He has hired a managing editor who is focusing more on news, more particularly government and elections, and less on business issues on the front page--making it more of a full service newspaper instead of almost all business/stock market focused. The idea, so I've heard, is so that the WSJ will become serious competition for the NYT.

That should be seen as a good thing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

they pulled the article?

I found it right here...

AARP Pivots on Social Security Benefit Cut - WSJ.com

Good. For some reason it wasn't showing up when I searched for it.

So you make a claim, which is proved to be incorrect, and that's ok.... or is it that you deliberately lied?

Seems to me you have a really big blind spot. You are unable to see shit on the left, but you'll scream like a banshee about the same shit on the right.

And... it's a lie if the guys you believe say it is.

You know what that makes you? Stupid.

I prefer the term idiot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I agree it may be ironic, but having blinders on is prerequisite fo any partisan, left or right.

Which is why maintaining an open mind is supposed to be a virtue.

An open mind is a sign of intellect, which is why the likes of NYCluelessMoron and the Whiny Pillock are not capable of an open mind.

Neither of them are capable of understanding why I say I have no 'side', and yet also maintain I am a conservative. They both dumbasses.

I don't think a true conservative can take political sides. Conservatism is based on principles, ideals, and concepts and neither Democrats nor Republicans measure up to those these days.

Remind me to pos rep you for this.

 

[daveman]

CG is a troll. Is that a virtue?

"Troll" does NOT mean "someone who posts things that hurt leftists' feelings".

I was referring to her appearance.

Ahhh. Just more typical leftist misogyny, then.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Troll" does NOT mean "someone who posts things that hurt leftists' feelings".

I was referring to her appearance.

Ahhh. Just more typical leftist misogyny, then.

And what did you call it when CG was insulting a female poster's appearance for weeks on end?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He just did it, moron.

Here's the real AARP position:

AARP Has Not Changed Its Position on Social Security - AARP.org

Getting lippy again eh? I don't see a retraction, you see this;

Good as in "I'm relieved to know that it's not the coverup I first suspected."

When the news cycle is as fast as it now is, pundits like me will step in it every once in a while. .

is a retraction ( or mea culpa, I won't split hairs) and, since it came AFTER I requested it, I guess that makes you a jackass, but well, getting owned as many times as you manage it week in week out, I guess you need an outlet.

have a great day eh?

He has to retract that he saw it was taken down if he saw it was taken down?

Are you mentally handicapped?

Are you?

It wasn't taken down.

 

[Trajan]

The WSJ news pages have always tilted left of center ever since I've been reading the WSJ which is a loooooong time now. The editorial pages are pretty right of center.

Murdoch has not made any changes in the slant of either the news pages or the editorial pages. He has hired a managing editor who is focusing more on news, more particularly government and elections, and less on business issues on the front page--making it more of a full service newspaper instead of almost all business/stock market focused. The idea, so I've heard, is so that the WSJ will become serious competition for the NYT.

That should be seen as a good thing.

agreed.

and as an avid reader and subscriber for 20 years, I can tell those who doubt it, they do take reps,. cons et al to task, I would say that their op ed slant is a capitalist op ed slant in that anything they see as obstructing the free market and damaging the fisc. etc ( including bush's spending ) they will take to task.

I can also say with absolute certainty, you never have and I doubt as long as Paul Gigot runs the op ed pages ever ever ever see the crass, pejorative laden deep space right or left mau mauing you see in the NY Times, period.

Yes FF, one of their goals is to supplant the times, and frankly, Sulzberger Jr. has the Time is on course for deep space nine and don't really need any extra competition.

They are bleeding circulation and though they always will have a built in audience, its not enough to sustain them, there having to go to a Mexican mogul for a loan, speaks to directly to the mismanagement that is rife there, on all levels, and hiring an ombudsman who once said seriously, ( among other alike comments) the times was the bible in her home, well, hey Keller was no prize but for god sakes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
That hotbed of of radical fundy rethugs, NPR, is lying, too: For AARP, A 'Monumental' Shift On Social Security? : NPR

How?

 

[daveman]

I was referring to her appearance.

Ahhh. Just more typical leftist misogyny, then.

And what did you call it when CG was insulting a female poster's appearance for weeks on end?

Well, it wouldn't be leftist misogyny, would it?

 

[daveman]

[
That hotbed of of radical fundy rethugs, NPR, is lying, too: For AARP, A 'Monumental' Shift On Social Security? : NPR

How?

Do keep up.

Idiot OP said the WSJ was lying. NPR publishes the same information -- but he refuses to say NPR, or any liberal outlet with the same story, is lying as well.

Got it now?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Getting lippy again eh? I don't see a retraction, you see this;


is a retraction ( or mea culpa, I won't split hairs) and, since it came AFTER I requested it, I guess that makes you a jackass, but well, getting owned as many times as you manage it week in week out, I guess you need an outlet.

have a great day eh?

He has to retract that he saw it was taken down if he saw it was taken down?

Are you mentally handicapped?

Are you?

It wasn't taken down.

The poster didn't find it. Why he have found it, and then lied, saying it was down, knowing how easy it would be to prove him a liar?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
That hotbed of of radical fundy rethugs, NPR, is lying, too: For AARP, A 'Monumental' Shift On Social Security? : NPR

How?

Do keep up.

Idiot OP said the WSJ was lying. NPR publishes the same information -- but he refuses to say NPR, or any liberal outlet with the same story, is lying as well.

Got it now?

Did you notice the question mark at the end of NPR's headline?