>What do you make of the derangement of the WSJ editors vs. its
>reporting? It's like they don't read their own paper. Sorry to make
>the cliched observation, but sometimes they seem out to sabotage
>capitalism. Having cracked decision makers sounds like an unstable
>situation that would undercut their effectiveness (or at least their
>reporting), but they've been at it for a long time. Or is this a
>shift from earlier years?
The cliched answer to the cliche question is that capitalists want to know the truth when they're running their businesses, and want to live in a fantasy world when it comes to politics. I'm not sure if that's true, but that's the standard answer.
Showing its partly midwestern roots, the WSJ once took an isolationist line, arguing that foreign wars would doom democracy at home. Pretty different now.
Doug