"Why we talk about Reagan"
posted by bunnyfire on Feb 8, 2002 - 81 comments

Ideas have consequences. On the subject of the Daniel Pearl kidnapping, an interesting letter to Media News today (scroll down to the "Journalists as Political Operatives" item), reads in part, "I would not want to trivialize it for all the world, but I am constrained to point out that it was only recently that Mr. Pearl's newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, felt compelled to praise the book "Bias" which perports to lay bare the 'liberal bias' of mainstream journalism. In fact, the WSJ editorial board has for years persisted, along with other conservative commentators, to label journalists as political tools in service of a larger political agenda. The kidnappers of Mr. Pearl insist that he is a political tool, a spy, for some foreign government (one day the U.S., the next day Israel.) Where could they have possibly gotten the idea that journalists are not the dedicated professionals they claim to be but are instead something else in disguise?" Thoughts?
posted by nance on Jan 31, 2002 - 35 comments

The latest on the WSJ Reporter ... Damn. "The group that claims it has kidnapped a Wall Street Journal reporter in Pakistan has sent e-mail to news organisations threatening to kill him within 24 hours unless the U.S. government released Pakistani prisoners held in the Afghan war."
posted by MidasMulligan on Jan 30, 2002 - 20 comments

Remember the Microsoft story the Wall Street Journal hastily yanked without explanation from its Web site earlier this week? They missed a copy.
posted by jjg on Apr 14, 2000 - 0 comments