This seems like an attempt to inject the narrative that support for the war is waning.
Classic WSJ.
Imagine living in a bubble where the support for the war isn’t waning.
I encourage you to try engaging with reality https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/support-for-ukraine-aid-softens-in-u-s-public-poll-says
Just try and pay attention to whose work you are doing.
I’m pretty sure I’m not doing the work of the genocidal US empire as some people are here.
no, just an imperial, genocidal, racist Russia instead. bravo.
Not that this is a competition, but Russia isn’t even in the same league as US when it comes to genocide and racism. You lot murdered so many native people that the global climate cooled. Meanwhile, in more recent history your country murdered over 6 million people in your war on terror. Not to mention the horrors your shithole country has enacted upon Latin America. And then when people from there flee you put them in concentration camps.
I’m not sure carrying water for the WSJ and “doing the work of the genocidal US empire” are separable. Maybe you should find better sources than the WSJ to support your pro-Russian imperialist stance. It would fit the narrative better.
If you disagree with the specific points the article makes then feel free to articulate them.
Published on Feb 15, 2023 12:47 PM EDT
Are you claiming support has gone up since then, please do link your sources.
putting more words in my mouth, i see.
If you weren’t implying that the article isn’t representative of the current situation then do elaborate on what your comment actually meant using your own words.
Wall Street Journal
RIGHT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources are slight to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation.
Analysis / Bias
The Walls Street Journal hasn’t endorsed US political candidates since 1928; however, they are criticized for supporting far-right populist politicians abroad. For example, in South America, they all but endorsed far-right Congressman Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil’s presidential election. They have also written favorably about Chilean Dictator Augusto Pinochet. The WSJ has been strongly criticized for its pro-Trump coverage. According to The Atlantic, there was an alleged conflict about how to cover Trump, resulting in an opinion editor’s departure.
In review, the WSJ utilizes emotionally loaded language in their editorial headlines that favor the right, such as this: “Wrap It Up, Mr. Mueller Democratic dilemma: Impeach Trump for lying about sex?” They also frequently promote anti-climate change messages such as this: “The Phony War Against CO2.” Here is another example from an editorial on Trump’s position on climate change “Not the Climate Apocalypse: The EPA’s power rule won’t save coal and won’t poison the planet.” Further, IFCN fact checker Climate Feedback has cited numerous editorials in which the Wall Street Journal uses very low scientific credibility. The pro-science Climate Science & Policy Watch has also criticized the WSJ for rejecting the 97% consensus of climate scientists. Lastly, The Guardian has an article describing how the WSJ “peddles big oil propaganda” while “disguising climate misinformation as opinion.”
When reporting regular news, the WSJ uses minimally loaded words such as this: China Agrees to Reduce Tariffs on U.S. Autos. News articles are also adequately sourced to credible media outlets like the Financial Times and Washington Post.
more at MediaBiasFactCheck.com
I have a test I like to apply to media bias websites. See how factual known US propaganda rags are rated.
Radio Free Asia: Factual Reporting High
Voice Of America: Factual Reporting High, Bias Rating Least Bias
Glowing reviews saying US government funded media outlets are unbiased and highly factual should trigger alarm bells in the head of anyone looking to get a factual reporting of events. Websites like mediabiasfactcheck don’t serve to help people look at news critically: they encourage people to put critical thinking in someone else’s hands so they don’t need to bother with it themselves.
feel free to actually address what the article is saying
i prefer not to waste my time on speculation from biased sources.
That’s a nonsensical statement. Every source has biased, so what you’re really saying is that you discard any information that doesn’t come from your own bubble. Pretty funny how you talk about wasting time, yet you took the time to write these content free comments here.
if you have to put words in my mouth to feel better, I can’t stop you. but it doesn’t change the facts.
Nobody is putting words in your mouth. I’m just unpacking the implications of your statement. The facts are that you keep making content free comments that don’t contribute anything to the discussion.
when you “unpack” words i did not say, then yes you are putting words in my mouth. and whether they contribute to the conversation is not measured by how emotional or irrational you become in response.
No, that’s not what putting words in somebody’s mouth means, but of course it’s too much to expect you to understand the terms you throw around. Also, thank you for your psychoanalysis, that’s about the level or rationality I’ve come to expect from you.
