There has been a lot of debate lately about the value of reader comments. But in the case of a Wall Street Journal article posted late Friday about American Media, Inc.’s possible collusion to keep an unflattering Donald Trump sex-scandal story out of circulation, it is the reader comments that are by far the most interesting.
The article comes on the heels of a voluntary buyout deadline at the paper and some associated impending section retrenchment. In that context, it’s especially intriguing to ponder comments like this:
Sorin Domsa: Honestly, I could not finish reading the article. What it shows is a role reversal: WSJ becoming a tabloid and National Enquirer showing restraint, as any professional publication should do. I cannot believe that WSJ stooped this low. It is idiotic, because it puts a stain on business news WSJ is publishing. You may even wonder about WSJ market and economic data. Totally unprofessional.
No data, no proof, just biased dirt. I could write such a story about my or your affair with Hillary (God forbid). Of course, I will not renew my subscription.
Jeffrey Davis: The only thing learned from this article is WSJ highly invested in a hit piece 4 days prior to Election Day. Anybody can accuse anybody else of anything, an accusation is proof of…… nothing. It is eye-opening that a formerly respected daily would print such trash based upon rumor, conjecture, and thin air. Wonder if Gloria Allred paid her $500K yesterday too. Pardon me while I hold my nose as I pass the stench which now merits the front page of the Journal. Shame.
Michael Carlucci: Come on WSJ, get yourself out of the toilet and get back to reporting some meaningful election news. I don’t care about some unpublished story about who Trump allegedly slept with 10 years ago.
Several additional commenters, like Davis above, are taking issue with how prominently the article is teased at the top of the wsj.com home page. That element is pictured, above.
H/T: Scott Marks