>I do know that one of the editorial page guys is a
>friend of the Scaife/Starr set. But what I can't
>figure out is how a paper which appeals to high income
>well educated people thinks that its best
>political-marketing strategy lies in a right-wing quasi
>fundamentalist political agenda. My take on their best
>political strategy is a kind of Rockefeller
>Republicanism.
>
>If anyone could provide sound "materialist" reasons for
>the schizoid character of the paper, please let me
>know.
First of all, the edit page's views are not at odds with at the very least a significan minority of Wall Street thinking, and perhaps the majority. Never overestimate the sophistication of financiers. Ditto the small biz types who also buy lots of copies of the paper. On the other hand, what they need to know is often at odds with what they believe. So the news report (as they say in the trade) often presents a very unattractive picture of actually existing capitalism, but at the level of ideology they don't want to hear it. So it's a perfect example of a divided mind; after all, what people believe often has nothing to do with "facts," and no matter how rigorous & persuasive the presentation of the facts, people will go on believing anyway.
Is that materialist?
Doug