The Wall Street Journal Cares Little About Facts

The Wall Street Journal has been a consistent denier of global warming.  It has also been leading the charge against social welfare programs in the US.  Jeff Sachs critiques recent WSJ articles on each of those topics.  It published an article on global warming that uses a single year in which the globe did not warm, to conclude that the globe is not warming.  Among other things, it ignores the fact that 10 of the warmest years in history have occurred in the last 15 years.  The WSJ has taken a position against global warming, and it has no problem finding intellectual prostitutes who are willing to help them.  It uses a familiar rhetorical device to make its case against social welfare programs.  Everyone knows that Europe is having economic problems.  It found someone willing to argue that Europe's economic problems are the result of its generous social welfare programs, and that the US should not make the same mistake as Europe has made.   The only problem with that argument is that IMF data on European states with the most extensive social welfare programs shows that they are doing better than the US on many relevant measures.  The WSJ ignores facts that it does not like.  It prefers to rely upon the prejudices of its readers to support its positions.  Many of its readers believe that Europe's economic problems are related to its social welfare programs, so its easy to get them to make the leap to the conclusion that the WSJ editors want them to make.  The WSJ simply reinforces their belief system.

 The US is fortunate to have a mostly free press.  In many countries the press only reports what the government wants its it to report.  In the US we have a different problem.  People like Rupert Murdoch can purchase media outlets like the WSJ, Fox News, and yellow journalism outlets in the UK and Australia.  Those who own the media are free to report what they want.  Moreover, the media in the US are financially dependent upon advertising revenue. They have to consider the reactions of their advertisers when they make content decisions.  In some ways we are worse off in the US.  Smart people in countries without a free press understand that the limitations of the media.  Few in the US understand the factors that shape the content that they receive from the media.