- Account Options
- Navigation menu
- Blog Post Filter
Wsj under the covers of online dating - Kaju katli price in bangalore dating 2017
Mainstream Media Cheerleaders and Detractors The lack of transparency of the New York Fed as regards the custody gold that it stores for its central bank customers is therefore a valid point. The Wall Street Journal article of August 10 is merely highlighting this valid point. But this sort of reaction is par for the course from elements of the cheerleading US mainstream media, who seem to feel an obligation to protect the Fed and the status quo of the incumbent central bank led financial system from any valid criticism.
However, I have asked the NY Fed serious questions about its custody gold. As the first query went unanswered, I then resubmitted the query a month later in mid-March. On neither occasion did the Fed respond or acknowledge the request. Conclusion I had expected the WSJ article to be a lot longer and more in-depth than it actually was, and to obtain some publishable response from the NY Fed. The WSJ however says in the article that: Hilarious in the sense that the NY Fed would even see fit to heavily redact a simple tour-guide manual.
To quote the WSJ: This at least would be some sort of backup evidence to the published article. There are a multitude of angles that the Wall Street Journal could cover if it wanted to do a proper investigation into the gold bars supposedly stored in the NY Fed vault below 33 Liberty on Manhattan Island.
Editorial page and political stance[ edit ] Further information: Subsequent Pulitzer Prizes have been awarded for editorial writing to Robert L. Two summaries published in by the progressive blog Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting , and in by the Columbia Journalism Review  criticized the Journal's editorial page for inaccuracy during the s and s. The Journal describes the history of its editorials: They are united by the mantra "free markets and free people", the principles, if you will, marked in the watershed year of by Thomas Jefferson 's Declaration of Independence and Adam Smith 's Wealth of Nations.
So over the past century and into the next, the Journal stands for free trade and sound money ; against confiscatory taxation and the ukases of kings and other collectivists ; and for individual autonomy against dictators, bullies and even the tempers of momentary majorities.
If these principles sound unexceptionable in theory, applying them to current issues is often unfashionable and controversial. As former editor William H. Grimes wrote in On our editorial page we make no pretense of walking down the middle of the road. Our comments and interpretations are made from a definite point of view. We believe in the individual, in his wisdom and his decency.
We oppose all infringements on individual rights, whether they stem from attempts at private monopoly, labor union monopoly or from an overgrowing government.
People will say we are conservative or even reactionary. We are not much interested in labels but if we were to choose one, we would say we are radical. Just as radical as the Christian doctrine. The first is titled The Desolate Wilderness, and describes what the Pilgrims saw when they arrived at the Plymouth Colony. The second is titled And the Fair Land, and describes the bounty of America.
It was written by a former editor, Vermont C. Under the editorship of Robert Bartley , it expounded at length on economic concepts such as the Laffer curve , and how a decrease in certain marginal tax rates and the capital gains tax could allegedly increase overall tax revenue by generating more economic activity. In the economic argument of exchange rate regimes one of the most divisive issues among economists , the Journal has a tendency to support fixed exchange rates over floating exchange rates.
For example, the Journal was a major supporter of the Chinese yuan 's peg to the dollar, and strongly disagreed with American politicians who criticized the Chinese government about the peg.
It opposed China's move to let the yuan gradually float, arguing that the fixed rate benefited both the United States and China. The Journal's views compare with those of the British publication The Economist , with its emphasis on free markets[ citation needed ]. However, the Journal demonstrates important distinctions from European business newspapers, most particularly in regard to the relative significance of, and causes of, the American budget deficit. The Journal generally points to the lack of foreign growth, while business journals in Europe and Asia blame the low savings rate and concordant high borrowing rate in the United States.
Political stance[ edit ] Mark Rutte , prime minister of the Netherlands , being interviewed by the Journal The Journal's editorial pages and columns , run separately from the news pages, are highly influential in American conservative circles. As editors of the editorial page, Vermont C.
Royster served — and Robert L. Bartley served — were especially influential in providing a conservative interpretation of the news on a daily basis.
In a July 3, , editorial, the board wrote: There shall be open borders. In particular, it has been a prominent critic of the Affordable Care Act legislation passed in , and has featured many opinion columns attacking various aspects of the bill. The Journal is regarded as a forum for climate change skeptics ,   publishing articles by scientists skeptical of the consensus position on climate change in its op-ed section, including several essays by Richard Lindzen of MIT.
Also, none of editorials published in the WSJ since concede that the burning of fossil fuels was causing climate change. It was also the most likely to present negative economic framing when discussing climate change mitigation policies,  tending to taking the stance that the cost of such policies generally outweighs their benefit.
On October 25, , the editorial board called for Special Counsel Robert Mueller to resign from the investigation into Russian interference in the United States elections and accused Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign of colluding with Russia. They calculated the ideological attitude of news reports in 20 media outlets by counting the frequency they cited particular think tanks and comparing that to the frequency that legislators cited the same think tanks.
The study did not factor in editorials. An August 1 editorial responded to the questions by asserting that Murdoch intended to "maintain the values and integrity of the Journal.