To put it another way, it seems hypocritical of the Wall Street Journal to object to a little war profiteering. That's what makes USA great
-
-
-
If you believe in 1) imperialist wars & 2) capitalism -- as WSJ does -- then how can you object to Solomon's acts?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Read the commentary sections, their insanity knows no limits.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Perhaps it became too obvious and firing Solomon gives cover for hawks that want to maintain a semblance of sobriety
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Sure, it's an ethical violation of journalistic principles but I'm not sure WSJ can object based on its editorial principles.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Also, WSJ used to have a solid wall separating reporting & editorial but I think that has been breached recently.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
No u didnt. WSJ has no natural relatilationship or affiliation to moral or ethical standards or country fidelity 1/
-
that was obtained through inner reflection. I'm sure the only reason they fired him was a competitor for arms deal. 2/
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
It's not super-bad or anything but paper has become more sensationalist: see here: http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/02/26/the-sensationalist-wsj-2/ …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yeah, that's why he was fired. But I say if war profiteering is good enough for the owners its good enough for reporters.
-
He was fired because he got in on a racket that's supposed to be management-only
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.