It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
• The U.S. is still missing about 3.5 million workers... several million workers plan to stay out indefinitely
• About three million workforce dropouts say they don’t plan to return to pre-Covid activities—whether that includes going to work, shopping in person or dining out—even after the pandemic ends
• Consistently, 1 in 10 have said they plan no return.
• The labor force [may] be depressed for potentially years after the pandemic recedes
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved.© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved. Powered by Vanilla
"Several million workers who dropped out of the U.S. workforce during the Covid-19 pandemic plan to stay out indefinitely because of persistent illness fears or physical impairments, potentially exacerbating the labor shortage for years, new research shows.
About three million workforce dropouts say they don’t plan to return to pre-Covid activities—whether that includes going to work, shopping in person or dining out—even after the pandemic ends, according to a monthly survey conducted over the past year by a team of researchers. The workforce dropouts tend to be women, lack a college degree and have worked in low-paying fields."
Not so. Fox "News" is also a unit of News Corp. There is no management connection between the two operations.
• What is the Journal's ownership structure?
Dow Jones & Co., a unit of News Corp, publishes The Wall Street Journal, Barron's, MarketWatch, Factiva and Dow Jones Newswires.
• Why is the Journal’s newsroom separate from the editorial department that publishes Opinion pieces?
The Wall Street Journal separates news and opinion. The news department operates independently of the opinion pages. Both report to Dow Jones CEO Almar Latour.
The news pages offer readers the highest standards of rigorous, factual, impartial news reporting, while the opinion pages offer a panoply of contributors who add to societal debate in the U.S. and elsewhere. The Journal is committed to clear labeling, so readers know when they are reading an editorial or opinion piece, as opposed to a news article.
As a prime example of reporting bias, I would note that we also have subscribed to the San Francisco Chronicle for over fifty years. At one time it was actually a decent newspaper. In the past few years it's reporting has deteriorated to little more than a totally predictable "progressive" distortion of reality. The main reason that we maintain the subscription is to read the comics section.
I come from a strong Union family, and in fact was myself a Union steward for a number of years, so my natural bias is obviously towards “left-leaning” perspectives, and I don't regard either of the terms "left-leaning" or "right-leaning" as pejorative. There most definitely is a "left-wing" and a "right-wing", and to pretend otherwise is to be blind to reality.
Nonetheless, I do not want or appreciate significant bias in my news reports. The reason that we subscribe to this spread of news resources is to allow comparison of reported information.
I must respectfully disagree with your opinion of the WSJ. By and large we have found their reporting to be factual, reasonably neutral, and generally in accordance with other decent sources. As you note, any news operation has to choose what events to cover, and with respect to the WSJ it's hard to know if editorial bias influences that. It is true that the WSJ does not always choose the same event overage as The Washington Post, but it's also very true that WaPo is hardly without a "left-leaning" bias of it's own.
One tries to distill something close to the truth by obtaining input from a variety of sources. No one of them is perfect, by any means.
The WP can be had for $6 monthly if you’re a Prime member. I choose not to subscribe.
Edit: it looks like you can read it if you register, without having to subscribe.
I don’t consider myself a leftist, but others might. A grad-school friend of mine, long after I had taken a leadership role in my union, reminded me that I organized our fellow grad students to confront a new department chair on sweeping changes he had unilaterally imposed. And my mother-in-law asked me if I was one of those liberal professors she was always reading about in the WSJ. She read only one paper.
Regarding the WSJ, I consider its new coverage reasonably neutral — and my political views are left central. I also worked as a journalist for much of my career, and the WSJ’s news coverage is well respected among its peers. As others noted, its editorial pages are another matter and slant hard right.
I won’t credit Bezos with the decline, since newspapers generally have succumbed to cost pressures (reducing hard content) and, to an extent, the polarization of society where a publication’s perceived “slant” may attract or discourage readers. I can only say the WP ain’t what it once was. Neither is the WSJ - but it does a better job separating the opinion out into a separate section. It has enough subscribers paying an inflated price that it can still afford good research staffs and journalists.