The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! Is Wall Street Journal Right wing or Left wing?in Politics

agsr

I was under impression that WSJ was a right wing publication, but someone mentioned that many of the WSJ writers are actually leftists.  Have I been reading liberal propoganda without realizing it?

love2debate

Right wing

CYDdharta

Mixed.  It's right wing establishment; they have almost as many goals in common with liberals as they do with the right

melanielust

WSJ is one of my favorite sources because they do a very good job of providing multiple perspectives - that being said, they still have a slight conservative slant. A lot of writers there are liberal, I'm sure, but overall it's run by conservatives and most other publications consider them to be conservative.

the_world

@melanielust , I agree.

Although, it is deffietely a left wing democratic journal.

AlwaysCorrect

Don't really read it myself, but I get the impression it's economically right of centre (tax breaks for tj rich, etc) but socially liberal (support equal rights and gay marriage, etc).

That's just my take from second hand osmosis of its content.

SilverishGoldNova

I would say in it's mostly centrist. 

kmelkevolution17

I would say they are somewhere in the left are, but more in the leaning to moderate area of that due to their some what mixed reporting.

northsouthkorea

They are a mixed publication.

yolostide

The Wall Street Journal is more of a moderate to leaning left publication which seems to dislike Trump.

ale5

WSJ mostly expresses right wing /central opinions

Rodinon

My impression (not the best informed one on this subject of the WSJ) is that they are what is called "Establishment Rebublican," or at least strongly align with them most of the time.  I am a little more familiar with the motives of "the Establishment" than the WSJ.

The Establishment is authoritarian, like many Liberals, in that they want big government.  Because it means big positions, lots of influence, big salaries, more attention, etc.  Or that they are paranoid helicopter bureaucrats oh so concerned about our well being.  Most likely the former.  My Congressman hasn't checked to see if I've been wearing my seatbelt or eating my greens lately.  This is why they only vote for Obamacare repeal when they know it won't count, and absolutely do everything they can to make an alternative that is unpalatable to conservatives, because they know we won't bite, and they get to keep all the nice new government agencies to which they and their family members can be appointed to prestigious sounding positions that give six figure salaries for far less work.  Also, government is wasteful so more agencies mean more contracts for businessmen.  And there's nothing inherently wrong with honest business with a government, but if the agency is redundant and wasteful, so are all its contracts with the private sector.

Socially, they also tend to lean a little left, as was already pointed out.

Where they lean right is where social conservatives have filtered in, some genuinely do have socially conservative views, and while they want big government, also generally don't want to abolish private property, unlike the left who REALLY lean that way in more than just a general sense.

The last point I want to make is the Neocon influence.  Now I could go on a rant here, but I'll try to keep cool.  I am not a Neocon.  I generally oppose them.  But in their defense, there was this fad to try to merge Neocons with NeoNazis in the minds of gullible Americans for a while.  The only thing Neo means is NEW.  The reason the Neocons were NEW Conservatives (and there have always been very few of them) was that the Socialist influences have always been within the Democrat party, and during the Cold War, many Democrats who had Socialist views were viewed as too friendly with the USSR and other Communist countries.  If we got into a war, some democrats wanted to win it because they rooted for the country they lived in.  Kind of a natural thing.  I wouldn't call them true Nationalists, they just didn't like losing, especially since they were already in political power.  They moved over to the Republican Party exclusively for foreign policy reasons.  Anyway, the "we don't want to be lined up and shot in a Marxist revolution" and "Let's make a bigger bureaucratic mouse trap" ideas made them right at home at the upper echelons of the Republican party, and especially the Washington machine, especially when we were trying to find any ally, shady or not, against the spread of Communism.  And they stayed there.  And they greatly influence certain parts of WSJ and FOX News, etc.