I started to read the WSJ in college. I had a professor who recommended that we read two newspapers every day: the NYT and the WSJ. Considering he was my intellectual hero at the time (and frankly, still is) I took his advice. Within a few months I was hooked on the combination. Both delivered great news but from different points of view.
For the last 20 years, the WSJ has been a central element of my every day reading. While I no longer get a physical copy (does anybody anymore?), the digital version is still a daily read.
But over the last few years -- the Murdoch years -- there has been a disturbing trend.
First, Murdoch owns the paper. Simply put, the man is alone responsible for a collective loss of at least 50 IQ points in the American public's cognitive ability. While he is great at making the news look like a big-time wrestling event (more yelling and screaming per hour than any other channel), he is terrible at informing people.
But while the WSJ has a few stories that I read, the number is far less so then before. Frankly, Bloomberg and Reuters are much better news sources. They seem to be far more interested in the art of informing the reader rather than trying to convince the reader of something. In short, the WSJ has lost a considerable amount of its skill at writing straightforward economic and market news items.
So, do I still need to read the WSJ everyday?
Fed may taper later this year
35 minutes ago