> This is a common theme that the WSJ opinion pages push.
Am I reading this correctly when I take it to mean that you think something being on the WSJ opinion pages gives it credibility?
Am I reading this correctly when I take it to mean that you think something being on the WSJ opinion pages gives it credibility?
Opinion pages don't mean they lie, it means they will use facts to back up an opinion the writer is expressing. Their opinion pages have a slant for sure, but tend to be much on the rails that some other papers.
You are welcome to argue against the point WSJ editorial board (or guest writers, such as the piece I linked) is making on their pages, but outright discounting an argument because of a source is intellectually lazy. Yes, we need to discriminate by source at least some, but that should make us skeptical, not out right reject a point being made.
This is simply untrue of the WSJ opinion pages, they've been publishing climate change denials for the last 30 years, so "factual" is absolutely not something you can just take for granted if you find it there. This is why I found it incredible that you implied it would be a mark of quality.