you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

That's completely standard in journalism - and the WSJ, despite being an aggressively horrible publication politically and morally, is quite respected for the strict veracity of it's reporting. I don't doubt they were told that, by a reputable source. I have no idea if it's true beyond that however, since the trump admin isn't exactly overflowing with decent quality human beings.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Like I said, truly awful morally. Not about to argue against that. But your link doesn't speak to their adherence to reporting strictly true (if heavily manipulated as to the apparent context and implications) information, which is all I've claimed. They fuckin' suck, but they know that, and they delight in being able to pull a charlie kirk smug face and pull out the recipts when challenged on it.

  • source
  • parent