Wall Street Journal Editorial Page's Overuse Of Scare Quotes: "Cost," "Deficit," "Affordable," "Report"

There are so many things that make The Wall Street Journal editorial page a source of personal fascination--the undying faith in voodoo economics, the staunch defense of executive privilege and disdain for independent counsels during Republican presidencies alternating with disdain for executive privilege and staunch defense of independent counsels during Democratic presidencies--but perhaps the most intriguing is the wildly promiscuous use of quotation marks. Over the years, it's become an obsession of mine.

Like most of us, the Journal uses scare quotes to signify that a term is misleading. A 2007 editorial on climate change complained that "political and media activists attempt to stigmatize anyone who doesn't pay homage to their 'scientific consensus.'" As a matter of grammar, if not as a matter of fact, this is perfectly clear: The Journal believes no scientific consensus on climate change exists. Likewise, the Journal holds that tax cuts do not reduce revenue and will unfailingly scare-quote any term that implies otherwise--i.e., "The estimated 'cost' of this fix to the Treasury over 10 years would be some $632 billion."

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[Patricia84]

This article is simply delicious.

[solarian]

what do you expect from a rupert paper not honesty

[UsofA]

WSJ has always been a reactionary, right wing mouthpiece. It's a fear-based journal, trying to convince the moneyed that the poor are coming to take away their riches. If America ends up imploding, the WSJ will have played an integral part. Yet, there's hope their contracting ideology will eventually ossify and weigh them down, leading to their hopeful extinction. It's essential that good people call them out, repeatedly, and expose their brand of nihilism.

[lglglg]

Since "Fox Gnus" can't use quotes as such (unless they overtly employ quotation fingers) , their favorite form of snarkiness is to open a segment with: "some people say, etc." Very often the person saying it is the Fox Gnuser himself or herself. Too bad Dan Abrams' "Beat the Press" segment on MSNBC wasn't kept by Rachel (but I still love you Rache).

[Moxo]

Do as I did - cancel your subscription to the WSJ and order up The Financial Times!

[TrooAmerican]

If Corporate america subscribed to the economic Ideals in the republican run WSJ, they would end up with really really rich Executives with insane compensation, businesses runnin solely on credit, and faltering with false accounting, criminal financial acts, rapingall company funds for Shareholders & Execs Instant ROI and massive profiteering, and Companies going bust left and right, while tanking the economy, laying off millions of workers, and basically ruining the longterm future of many many businesses that otherwise could continue just fine, nice and healthy by providing good but not outrageous compensation and keeping capital for downturns or investments and keeping debt low.

Oh CRAP!! they already did that!!!! aarrrrrrgghhhhhhh!
if only corporate America would do what foriegn companies do = build business for the future, long term success to keep the economy and their business rolling.

[Synthon]

Nice, well written piece.

[Boboday555]

Do you mean to tell me, that nasty little editor/owner Rupert Murdoch is turning this once venerable newspaper into FOX-NEWS in print?
Wow...what a shock!

[MurrayAbraham]

Although I agree completely with the TNR video on substance, I couldn't be critical enough on style. Two guys, on the verge of falling asleep, babbling cryptically.

A sloppy video like that deserves to be used by Hannity and Co to laugh at "lubrals", in the same way The Daily Show mocks hysterical pundits.

[adamsmith3]

The Wall Street Journal editorial page is biased toward a conservative slant? Really, wow that is such a novel opinion. Thanks New Republic for saying the obvious. Who cares? All major papers have slants one way of the other in their editorial pages. New York Times is clearly liberal....their only conservative David Brooks (I don't count neocons like Kristol) is a new-school activist government conservative. The rest are all liberals. Washington Post is mostly liberal. Washington Times is conservative. Why is it a big deal that the WSJ is conservative? Of course they are, they deal in investment and Wall Street mentality (low taxes, free markets, etc.). All editorials use rhetorical flourishes and scare words. Every columnist does it. This article is ridiculous considering the New Republic does the same thing except a slant to the left.

[BPCentrisAmerican]

Why are you stuck in the liberal, conservative rift? The WSJ opinion page is "opinion" get it. I listen to people like John Fund on the tube and I come away thinking this guy doesn't know what he is talking about. It's not a question of ideology is a question of truth, and the WSJ has become a knee jerk ink pot to reinforce a preconceived ideology for people resistant to changing times, the very definition of conservative dogma.

[WorkingClass]

Wall Street died last year. The stench is everywhere. The Wall Street Journal is just another Murdock rag. The ideology espoused by the editorial page has now been proven (by history) to be a steaming heap. We now know that the service economy was a scam. Americans are going to have to learn how to be productive again.

[lovethesinner]

I agree with the other posters, here. Talking about the WALL STREET JOURNAL editorial page is a waste of time. (except for the occasional truth that Peggy Noonan lets loose)

Better to focus on the larger truth. In 5 days, 19 hrs, and some minutes, George Bush will be just another faux cowboy from the Lone Star state. And Barack Hussein Obama will be the 44th president of the United States of America. His beautiful family will spend that evening sleeping in a house that salves built, and the nation will rest knowing that HOPE and CHANGE are brighter lights than even the sun can bring.

Happy birthday, America. This nation is soon to be reborn.
http://www.backwardsbush.com/code.php

[7daysbushisgone]

7 More DAYS TO NO BUSH!!!

http://theliepOlitic.com/2009/01/7-days-to-the-magic-ne-gro/

[LAThinker]

No mere drinking and presidenting

http://www.ucubd.com/Index.aspx?id=930@cid=d0100000

[RobinSeattle]

The Wall Street Journal is to the Financial Times what Wally George was to William F. Buckley.

[x004Ronin]

I used to read the Wall Street Journal Editorials. Occasionally, they used to offer something good. Their critique of Obama's healthcare plan was decent. There is no such thing as a "perfect" healthcare plan, and while Obama's plan was certainly better than McCain's (a plan which would save healthy people money but would have completely and utterly scre wed over sick people), I appreciated reading the downsides of Obama's as a med student.
However, ever since the Murdoch acquisition of WSJ, the editorial page has gone off the deep end. Just a few weeks ago, they printed an editorial claiming President Bush is unpopular because he was too bipartisan!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122584386627599251.html

Nobody sane (Republican or Democrat or Independent) would describe Bush's 2 terms as bipartisan. It's not an issue of judgment. It's an issue of sanity. There can be no debate over whether Bush was bipartisan just like there can be no debate over whether the Earth is bigger than the Moon - there is no intelligent counter-argument to the conventional wisdom that the Earth is bigger than the Moon!

[WorkingClass]

It's not an issue of judgment. It's an issue of sanity.

You are correct xoo4. Thanks for the link.

[BPCentrisAmerican]

Bush apologist need to live in different reality.