(Sigh…) Time to Cancel My Wall Street Journal Subscription

I’ve been asking myself a question over the past few months as I’ve begun exploring the world of blogs and online media: are my expectations for “old media” too high, or is it truly contributing to the intellectual sclerosis that characterizes our national dialog? I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but I do believe that individuals and organizations will act in ways that they believe maximize their economic self-interest. On that basis, corporate media will do what it thinks is likely to engage its market.

The irony, however, is that thanks to the hierarchical and highly centralized nature of corporate decisionmaking, there is often a gap between what the corporation thinks the market wants, and what the market actually wants. Too often, the bureaucracy within a corporation doesn’t realize just how large this gap is, and the corporation (or indeed an entire industry) can wither on the vine. In an extreme example, you can end up with an entire industry battling economic extinction: take our domestic auto industry.

But back to media. I’ve been a Wall Street Journal subscriber for years, and a couple years ago transitioned to the online WSJ for access while traveling, searchability, and a desire to save paper. My impression of the WSJ was that it was a credible and balanced reference for informed living. But that belief has been shaken over the past few weeks.

First was the recent article, “Ron Paul’s Earmarks“. I read it, rolled my eyes, and wrote the following letter to editor (which to my knowledge has not been published):

Editors:

One would expect the first Wall Street Journal article featuring presidential candidate Ron Paul’s name in the title to comment intelligently on the healthy debate that has ensued as a result of his candidacy. You could have chosen his consistent support for Constitutional limits on the size and scope of federal government, the contrast between those limits and our current economic and foreign policies, or perhaps even his support for personal liberty and free markets that places him beyond the mainstream of current Republican politics.

Instead, we were given an outdated and dismissive article commenting on earmarks requested for Rep. Paul’s Texas district. First, you prejudice your perspective by labeling Rep. Paul a “libertarian gadfly”. Next, this information is by no means recent. You are rehashing information first released by Rep. Paul in June, and that has been widely dissected in online media since then. Finally, your attempt to seek clarification from Rep. Paul’s office ignored the most obvious source: the congressman himself. Should you avail yourself to this modern wonder known as the Internet (or “Internets”, as it is occasionally referenced by politicians), you would discover that Ron Paul specifically addressed the hypocrisy of the current system in his Texas Straight Talk constituent bulletin of June 18:

“Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessarily save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars - than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn’t lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better.

“The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in last week’s earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills.

(Courtesy of the Ron Paul Library)

Rep. Paul’s assertions that “earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to”, and “eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats” indict of the current process, not the Congressman. It is unfortunate that your article was not able to identify the systemic issue, and instead was only able to characterize a truncated response from his office as “worthy of pork legends Tom DeLay or Senator Robert C. Byrd”.

It appears that enquiring readers would be better off consulting Rep. Paul’s extensive record of published letters and speeches (indexed at www.ronpaullibrary.org), than relying on your characterization of his actions.

So that’s strike one. Today, I happen upon the article “Huckabee, Iowa Poll’s Real Winner?” Based on the headline, I was hopeful. Hey, they figured out that Huckabee, not previously considered a “frontrunner”, exceeded his prior polling numbers. Maybe, I thought, they’ll comment on Ron Paul’s performance as well. Despite more than tripling his best prior polling numbers, however, Ron Paul’s performance was summed up in two sentences:

Fourth place and fifth place went, respectively, to Reps. Tom Tancredo of Colorado and Ron Paul of Texas — impressive showings for two men with narrowly defined candidacies. Mr. Paul, meanwhile, has built a fanatical following that has embraced his libertarian message and antiwar, anti-interventionist views; supporters came at their own expense from as far as Washington state to help out, though only Iowans could vote. (emphasis mine)

Now, I’m not going to claim that fifth place is more important than second place. But read the words in italics. Narrowly defined? Huh? My brain convulses when I read words that are either used mistakenly out of ignorance, or just wasteful filler to deaden the mind. I can’t respond any better than this comment to a recent Wired (now there’s new media!) article:

“Narrowly Defined Candidacy”! That is the funniest thing I have read in awhile. How can Ron Paul’s candidacy be termed as “narrowly defined”? He is a guy who wants to change our country’s whole direction. He wants to take us back to the Constitution. He wants to reduce our foreign entanglements. He wants to dissolve unnecessary government agencies. He wants to give more of our money back to us. He wants to deregulate. He wants to return us to sound money policy. He wants to support the Bill of Rights for every American. He wants to protect our borders. “narrowly defined candidacy”!!! Ha! Ha! If that is true, I sure wish every candidate was so narrowly defined. Then perhaps our great nation would not be in the mess she is in.

Posted by: Dee Ann Guzman | Aug 13, 2007 12:57:12 PM

 

Thanks, Dee Ann. You just saved me a lot of effort in writing this entry!

So that’s it. It’s the end of the road for the WSJ. I already use Briefing.com for breaking corporate news and market-moving information. I think I’m going to subscribe to the Economist instead. They were ahead of the curve (at least with respect to the Paul candidacy) with an article back on July 19th. Or better yet, I’m going to start supporting LewRockwell.com. They respect free markets and entrepreneurship, and recently gave up their tax-exempt status as an educational service based upon their desire to continue commenting on Ron Paul’s candidacy.

What do you think? Am I being too harsh on these guys? Or is Rupert Murdoch paying too much for a wasting asset?

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Explore posts in the same categories: Ron Paul, media