I assume you are referring to my post Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 08:05:37 +0000 To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com From: Chris Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org> Subject: Capitalism and Clinton
This drew on two overviews by the Observer, which suggested that the anti-Clinton network was a group of heterogenous literally reactionary forces, with the biggest money, and most determined lobbying, coming from the tobacco capitalists.
I am just trying to absorb the point here though. I am sorry but I have never heard or seen the initials. WSJ is Wall Street Journal yes/no?
I cannot understand if so, why it would take an openly reactionary line, expecially on a regional and religious political issue. The FT (Financial Times) has a long consistent history of being a highly liberal paper in its editorial line. Partly I have always assumed because it thinks it unnecessary or inappropriate to attempt to campaign in the wider political arena. It concentrates on the most authoritative information for intelligent capitalists. It is confident as a virtual inhouse journal of the British capitalist class, that British understatement will be noticed and acted upon far more reliably than anything shrill.
So can I ask what are the political interests of the WSJ, what is its political line, and what is its style of discourse?
I would be interested in your comments, but I suppose I had better buy a copy today, and read an editorial for the first time.
And perhaps so we do not lose the thread title, some more detail about its position on tobacco from anyone?
Chris Burford
London.