It seems to me there are three possibilities w/r/t that WSJ editorial:

  1. It was essentially dictated by Rupert Murdoch;
  2. It was written by Paul Gigot or someone else in an attempt to write what Rupert Murdoch would like to see;
  3. It’s a genuine statement of what the WSJ actually believes.

Genuine question, here: which of these three options would be the worst?

  1. trampoline6t reblogged this from felixsalmon
  2. diabetes-a1c reblogged this from felixsalmon
  3. the-bastion reblogged this from felixsalmon
  4. stlspeedlimit reblogged this from felixsalmon
  5. riseupinc reblogged this from felixsalmon
  6. nano-fic reblogged this from felixsalmon
  7. seg2010 reblogged this from felixsalmon
  8. elcorredornocturno reblogged this from felixsalmon
  9. insan-kaynaklari reblogged this from felixsalmon
  10. thinkfeetfirst reblogged this from felixsalmon
  11. univ-mutuelle reblogged this from felixsalmon
  12. voyage-senior reblogged this from felixsalmon
  13. markgladstone reblogged this from felixsalmon
  14. borkest reblogged this from felixsalmon
  15. imprimante3d reblogged this from felixsalmon
  16. nhmortgagebroker reblogged this from felixsalmon
  17. liverpool-seo-services reblogged this from felixsalmon
  18. weddingphotographersdublin reblogged this from felixsalmon
  19. felixsalmon posted this