Sure, but in order to know that the editorial page is "still on the right mostly" you would have to read the newspaper, which right-wingers don't because it's an actual newspaper and thus liberal. Moreover, reading a newspaper involves reading.
Are you assuming people only read newspapers with politics they agree with?
Why would they do that? I already know what I think - I want to find out what other people think. I watch both Fox and MSNBC (when I watch TV news which is almost never) to get multiple viewpoints.
It's certainly possible that their news section is closer to the center, that's what you see at Fox News, where actual news reporting allows facts to poke through some times. It wouldn't make a lot of sense for their news reporting to be left-wing, though, when the paper as a whole skews so far Right.
How you weigh the opinion vs news sections to get "paper as a whole" is a mystery to me. They're just different. The news sections seem pretty close to the NYT, which I call 8/10 left-wing. (Where 5=neutral.) Not that the 1D left-right spectrum is very useful.
Right, I recall the reporting being seen as distinctly to the left of the editorial page even in the 90s, but the gap opened up more in the 00s. Especially as it moved away from the focus on markets/business news (I think that shift happened more in the 00s).
It is by the standards of conservatism meaning "there are objective realities that cannot be changed by social engineering". If conservatism means Trump worship, the WSJ might as well be The Nation.
Another interpretation is that Republicans *don't trust anybody*, while Democrats mostly trust the status quo media.
Also:
* What does it mean to "trust Joe Rogan"? I trust that he says what he believes and isn't intentionally lying. I don't trust that he or his guests are correct.
I think you can easily generalize that high quality news is likely to be consumed by Dem leaning voters, the Economist certainly fits. Substack blogs obviously vary widely in their quality/seriousness so hard to get meaningful “trust” data
The poll would give you the impression that conservative media consumption is still centralized into Fox News, but it is clearly only capturing part of the giant archipelago of streamers and podcasters that out-perform their liberal counterparts by millions of views.
It would be interesting to see the consumption rates further broken down not just by party. Consider the fact that black voters vote 90% Democrat, but many of those voters are lower in educational attainment than white Republicans. How many black Democrats are reading the Atlantic? I bet, once you sort by only white Democrats, there’s an even bigger gulf between Dem and GOP voters in media tastes.
This makes sense. Most news consumption is, ultimately, for entertainment purposes. Maximally engaging infotainment both affirms the virtue of one’s own tribe *and* pillories the outgroup. The felt utility of consensus on the basic facts of news stories started to become secondary in the 90’s and now, with the rise of the Al Gore rhythms, is at an all time low. At least, until reality hits you personally in the face e.g., your kid gets the measles or you miss out on admission to Harvard because they already have enough asians, thank you very much.
It’s also interesting to see what the Republicans and Democrat coded forms of infotainment reveal about the personalities of the consumers. Fox News and the NY Post often focus on tabloid style outrage slop, often mixing standard news with gruesome true crime and sex scandals. Everything is sensational and designed to “own the libs.” While the NY Times and Atlantic are clearly set up to appeal to a more highbrow audience that enjoys intellectualism. Even just looking at the graphic design on those sites suggests that they are meant for more refined audience.
You need look no further than r/Conservative, the poster child of this. Every article is either:
- EXTREMELY sensationalised/clickbait headline that the commenters take as fact and seem not to read the actual story, in which the rag they inevitably linked has 0 actual evidence
Probably, framing the question as 'facts versus fiction' is misleading. 'Rationality versus mythology' appears more fruitful. Modern politics is largely, if not entirely, symbolic politics built around structures that Lévi-Strauss called bricolages. The intellectual form of bricolage is nothing other than mythological reflection, which erects its 'worldview palaces' by recombining 'construction debris from previous social discourse'.
The second element of symbolic politics is collective ritual. In this sense, the right is less inclined towards rational comprehension of reality but more inclined towards the mythological. It is important that mythology does not mean lies, or ideology in the Marxist sense of 'false consciousness'. It is a different mode of world-perception, based on sensory-emotional perception of the world. Rationalization arises post factum.
The effectiveness of such constructs lies not in their ability to 'manipulate' people's consciousness or instill ideology in them, but in how much they help one come to terms with the existing order, its worldview—including through the acceptance and performative enactment of roles. Recall Trump's fist after the assassination attempt—it was a genuine political myth that has impact but is not rationalized in any way.
Liberals create their own myths and rituals, which are likewise rationalized post factum or not rationalized at all. Why does this happen? I think there are two answers here. The first refers to Deleuze's 'societies of control', the second—to the disappearance of the demand for meaning, which Baudrillard described back in the 80s: 'Meaning is everywhere, it is produced more and more, and what is lacking is not supply, but precisely demand. Producing the demand for meaning—that is the system's main problem.'
In short, 'truth versus lies' is a false dichotomy. We all—in different countries—live in mythological realities where symbolic politics and collective rituals operate. Rational meaning holds little significance, both on the right and on the left.
You’ve made the case repeatedly about low human capital. This is quickly becoming a vicious cycle - the dumber they get, the even more stupid they become. While this is hilarious, it is also extremely disturbing in terms of where public discourse and societal function may be heading.
It's somewhat ironic to me to see Hanania criticize JD Vance. Vance seems high human capital. If Hanania wants the right to fix its human capital problem, he should be wishing for more Vances.
Particularly when you note the progression of high points in Democratic seats in the House over time. If you extrapolate the trend in ten years we will have exclusively Republican rule going forward with leaders getting worse and worse (see my earlier comment). Things could be very dark by the 2040's. I probably won't live to see these days, but some of you will.
I used to hope right-leaning voters would turn on their safe-space media universe eventually, but instead I think they were just ahead of the curve. Now I’m pretty confident left-leaning voters are going (mostly have already gone) down the same fact-free path. Emotional Truth > Actual Truth
How would you feel if a conservative replied that basically everything outside of Fox and the Rogan–Candace–Tucker vortex is just the left’s total grip on mainstream media — and that, in their view, they have nowhere else to turn? The feeling of being surrounded by hostile institutions isn’t unique.
I think conservatives with a genuine interest in fact-based reporting can read the New York Times, be cognizant of the paper's blindspots or biases, and adjust their interpretation of articles accordingly.
The revealed preference is that very few of these people actually exist -- when you look at the media consumption of many right-wing intellectual types it's clear they have a similar disinterest in the truth or a taste for low-quality infotainment as the conservative rabble.
So do that! It's a shitty job of "hiding" if how they're hiding it is by you not finishing the paper you bought. There's no mechanism that stops you skipping a few articles or pages if they don't seem interesting.
It is safe to say that the NYT has damaged its prestige enough to be outright ignored by anyone who is not consciously reading it to confirm their worldview. I think Andrew Klavan is right when he calls them a "former newspaper." Some disgraceful moments off the top of my mind:
1. Its extremely misleading coverage of the mob that attacked Charles Murray at Middlebury College in 2017.
2. Doxxing Scott Alexander for basically no reason.
3. The 1619 Project (which is propaganda as much as anything put out by "fringe" far-right publications).
4. The entire debacle that ensued when they published an op-ed by Tom Cotton during the George Floyd protests, which nearly blew up the whole paper because an editor dared to stray from progressive orthodoxy for a brief moment.
What do you mean? My post is low-IQ epistemic nihilism? What qualities exactly do you find so redeeming in the NYT that make it worth reading over papers or news sources that still maintain a record of journalistic integrity and are not outright deceptive? Making the argument that it is intellectually lazy to ignore a substantial publication outright might have some weight if it weren't behind a paywall.
What is the standard you're applying here? What news outlets meet it, and which don't?
I am not claiming that the Times is perfect, but I cannot think of a specific news source of similar scope I would consider to be more reliable or operating with more integrity
The WSJ or even the Washington Post, at this point, are far less scandal-ridden and have not lost their objectivity by blurring the line between the newsroom and the editorial boards. However, the issue is that the younger generation of activist journalists entering these papers are slowly forcing out older journalists who are less politically motivated, such as James Bennet and Marty Baron.
The ideal news source would be something like a smarter version of the Drudge Report which could aggregate actual high-quality journalism into a single place. The most significant barrier to that are the paywalls at these legacy papers. I know people like Arnold Kling have trained AI models to read articles and determine their objectivity and truthfulness. It would need to be something like that, built on a massive scale.
I am not on the right, but do not use the NYT as a source because it is paywalled. I am not going to link to a paywalled source (as some Substack writers do) to illustrate a point unless I absolutely have to.
If anything your article highlights the liberal leanings of the vast majority of US ‘news’ sources. Liberals can easily find articles written to appeal to their views. Conservatives read less MSM simply because there are fewer sources.
I would refer you to the Lab Leak Vs Zoonosis debate between Rootclaim and Peter Miller. It's 20 hours of debate in three parts, with $100,000 on the line each, where they do DEEP into each evidence point, going into the genetic structure of the virus, each purported first case, things like the Furin Cleavage Site, and a whole bunch of Bayesian shit (which is what Rootclaim claim shows lab leak was more likely).
The two judges were a microbiologist and a PhD mathematician respectively, chosen after an extensive process.
Zoonosis won (comfortably). The first 1/9th of the debate (each third is further split into thirds) convinced me lab leak was not possible.
Lab leak has become this kind of settled belief for many people but it's because it was simply said over and over by influential people like Trump. The evidence keeps pointing away from LL. It's just that there is no longer any public interest to re-evaluate beliefs en-masse.
Yeah what’s alarming to me is how predictable it’s become for right-wing influencers to keep pushing fake stories is. Of course Vance Boelter gets immediately framed as a “Democrat”because that version of reality was more useful (also distracts from his Christian nationalist ties) to maintain tribal unity/scapegoating. Once the narrative got traction, the original facts became irrelevant; the audience already decided what “must be” true. Sure, this helps prevent unity and maintain controlled tribes because nobody was disagreeing on whether what he did was wrong—it instead became about the fact that him being a conservative and having done something wrong was a threat, and that “had” to be countered with misinfo.
So the people peddling fake news come across as identity protectors and loyal friends to spare their followers from discomfort and cognitive dissonance, so that they in turn respond with trust and loyalty.
Why is it so hard to say “Yes he shared some of my political views, but clearly he does not my values. What he did was wrong and we don’t stand by it; he doesn’t represent us.”
Again we see how conservative media has become optimized for mimetic obedience without any scrap of concern for epistemic accuracy. The truth isn’t hard to find; it’s very obviously rejected because it threatens cohesion (and on a more individual level, is perceived as a threat to identity). Thus, figures like Musk or Mike Lee don’t even have to lie outright (even though they do), they can cast doubt, knowing their audience will resolve the ambiguity in the preferred direction that is more pleasing to the herd.
The pattern with much this fake news is that people stop asking “what happened, and why?”, and instead ask “which side benefits from this version of events? Which side is to blame (or—if I am against what happened, surely this is the other side’s fault).”
Once it’s deemed necessary to start reshaping reality fit the “brand,” they start actively training their audience to become more manipulable. That’s the scary part.
And not enough people (especially those who mocked COVID mask wearers by calling them “sheeple”, or warned that the “democrats are trying to make our country like Soviet Russia”) are disturbed and enraged by this.
The most shocking thing to me in the last graph is how much more polarized the Democrats are in their trust/distrust numbers. Republicans show more of a mix of trust and distrust for all their sources, but the Democrats really know which outlets are the Good Guys and which outlets are the Bad Guys. It's not just the mirror image of the Republicans' numbers.
I'm not sure if you meant that second-to-last sentence as a insult towards Democrats, but if you did, I would simply say that it rather shows that Democrats are more aware of the biases of those media, and that they don't have this cancerous default distrust for anything "liberal-coded" (or in their case, "right-wing-coded"). If there were a right-wing paper that was actually factual and trustworthy (as the WSJ has been called a few times), they'd likely trust it (and they DO trust the WSJ)
I can’t decide whether I love or hate the fact that Elon Musk and Catturd are in the same bucket here
I was surprised to see the Wall Street Journal numbers. Growing up, it was considered a conservative leaning publication.
That’s the point. The Wall Street Journal is coded as “liberal” on account of doing credible, serious reporting.
I dunno. The WSJ editorial page was and still is on the right mostly. News not so much. I don't think this is new.
Sure, but in order to know that the editorial page is "still on the right mostly" you would have to read the newspaper, which right-wingers don't because it's an actual newspaper and thus liberal. Moreover, reading a newspaper involves reading.
Are you assuming people only read newspapers with politics they agree with?
Why would they do that? I already know what I think - I want to find out what other people think. I watch both Fox and MSNBC (when I watch TV news which is almost never) to get multiple viewpoints.
(I don't agree with the politics of either one.)
I'm assuming that the people in question don't read newspapers at all, and largely don't read.
They deviate from Trump and his administration just enough to be classified among the 'lefty' publications to lots of people. Which is kind of funny
It's certainly possible that their news section is closer to the center, that's what you see at Fox News, where actual news reporting allows facts to poke through some times. It wouldn't make a lot of sense for their news reporting to be left-wing, though, when the paper as a whole skews so far Right.
How you weigh the opinion vs news sections to get "paper as a whole" is a mystery to me. They're just different. The news sections seem pretty close to the NYT, which I call 8/10 left-wing. (Where 5=neutral.) Not that the 1D left-right spectrum is very useful.
Right, I recall the reporting being seen as distinctly to the left of the editorial page even in the 90s, but the gap opened up more in the 00s. Especially as it moved away from the focus on markets/business news (I think that shift happened more in the 00s).
It is by the standards of conservatism meaning "there are objective realities that cannot be changed by social engineering". If conservatism means Trump worship, the WSJ might as well be The Nation.
Another interpretation is that Republicans *don't trust anybody*, while Democrats mostly trust the status quo media.
Also:
* What does it mean to "trust Joe Rogan"? I trust that he says what he believes and isn't intentionally lying. I don't trust that he or his guests are correct.
* What about people who read Substack blogs?
* And why isn't the The Economist in the list?
All valid. I think Hanania has identified a real problem here, but the numbers on trust are clearly commingled with effects like you describe.
I think you can easily generalize that high quality news is likely to be consumed by Dem leaning voters, the Economist certainly fits. Substack blogs obviously vary widely in their quality/seriousness so hard to get meaningful “trust” data
The Economist has its own weird and inconsistent biases. They change over time, too.
What's "high quality" is in the eye of the beholder.
Quality in this instance is not about bias but more about in how rigorous the reporting is and the advanced the writing is
The poll would give you the impression that conservative media consumption is still centralized into Fox News, but it is clearly only capturing part of the giant archipelago of streamers and podcasters that out-perform their liberal counterparts by millions of views.
It would be interesting to see the consumption rates further broken down not just by party. Consider the fact that black voters vote 90% Democrat, but many of those voters are lower in educational attainment than white Republicans. How many black Democrats are reading the Atlantic? I bet, once you sort by only white Democrats, there’s an even bigger gulf between Dem and GOP voters in media tastes.
There’s not enough black voters to move the needle materially imo
This makes sense. Most news consumption is, ultimately, for entertainment purposes. Maximally engaging infotainment both affirms the virtue of one’s own tribe *and* pillories the outgroup. The felt utility of consensus on the basic facts of news stories started to become secondary in the 90’s and now, with the rise of the Al Gore rhythms, is at an all time low. At least, until reality hits you personally in the face e.g., your kid gets the measles or you miss out on admission to Harvard because they already have enough asians, thank you very much.
It’s also interesting to see what the Republicans and Democrat coded forms of infotainment reveal about the personalities of the consumers. Fox News and the NY Post often focus on tabloid style outrage slop, often mixing standard news with gruesome true crime and sex scandals. Everything is sensational and designed to “own the libs.” While the NY Times and Atlantic are clearly set up to appeal to a more highbrow audience that enjoys intellectualism. Even just looking at the graphic design on those sites suggests that they are meant for more refined audience.
You need look no further than r/Conservative, the poster child of this. Every article is either:
- EXTREMELY sensationalised/clickbait headline that the commenters take as fact and seem not to read the actual story, in which the rag they inevitably linked has 0 actual evidence
- A Babylon Bee article
Probably, framing the question as 'facts versus fiction' is misleading. 'Rationality versus mythology' appears more fruitful. Modern politics is largely, if not entirely, symbolic politics built around structures that Lévi-Strauss called bricolages. The intellectual form of bricolage is nothing other than mythological reflection, which erects its 'worldview palaces' by recombining 'construction debris from previous social discourse'.
The second element of symbolic politics is collective ritual. In this sense, the right is less inclined towards rational comprehension of reality but more inclined towards the mythological. It is important that mythology does not mean lies, or ideology in the Marxist sense of 'false consciousness'. It is a different mode of world-perception, based on sensory-emotional perception of the world. Rationalization arises post factum.
The effectiveness of such constructs lies not in their ability to 'manipulate' people's consciousness or instill ideology in them, but in how much they help one come to terms with the existing order, its worldview—including through the acceptance and performative enactment of roles. Recall Trump's fist after the assassination attempt—it was a genuine political myth that has impact but is not rationalized in any way.
Liberals create their own myths and rituals, which are likewise rationalized post factum or not rationalized at all. Why does this happen? I think there are two answers here. The first refers to Deleuze's 'societies of control', the second—to the disappearance of the demand for meaning, which Baudrillard described back in the 80s: 'Meaning is everywhere, it is produced more and more, and what is lacking is not supply, but precisely demand. Producing the demand for meaning—that is the system's main problem.'
In short, 'truth versus lies' is a false dichotomy. We all—in different countries—live in mythological realities where symbolic politics and collective rituals operate. Rational meaning holds little significance, both on the right and on the left.
You’ve made the case repeatedly about low human capital. This is quickly becoming a vicious cycle - the dumber they get, the even more stupid they become. While this is hilarious, it is also extremely disturbing in terms of where public discourse and societal function may be heading.
It's somewhat ironic to me to see Hanania criticize JD Vance. Vance seems high human capital. If Hanania wants the right to fix its human capital problem, he should be wishing for more Vances.
Particularly when you note the progression of high points in Democratic seats in the House over time. If you extrapolate the trend in ten years we will have exclusively Republican rule going forward with leaders getting worse and worse (see my earlier comment). Things could be very dark by the 2040's. I probably won't live to see these days, but some of you will.
:many of these people probably don’t know much about the New York Post, but have a heuristic that “if something is a newspaper, don’t trust it.”:
Nearly as many conservatives distrust Fox as distrust the New York Post.
At least some of the demographic here has to have the heuristic "If it exists, don't trust it."
I used to hope right-leaning voters would turn on their safe-space media universe eventually, but instead I think they were just ahead of the curve. Now I’m pretty confident left-leaning voters are going (mostly have already gone) down the same fact-free path. Emotional Truth > Actual Truth
I don't think this is true of the older generations, but all bets are off with Gen Z and later.
You are incredibly fixated on Catturd. Why do you give that rando the time of day?
Catturd is essentially the id of MAGA. He's very representative.
How would you feel if a conservative replied that basically everything outside of Fox and the Rogan–Candace–Tucker vortex is just the left’s total grip on mainstream media — and that, in their view, they have nowhere else to turn? The feeling of being surrounded by hostile institutions isn’t unique.
I think conservatives with a genuine interest in fact-based reporting can read the New York Times, be cognizant of the paper's blindspots or biases, and adjust their interpretation of articles accordingly.
The revealed preference is that very few of these people actually exist -- when you look at the media consumption of many right-wing intellectual types it's clear they have a similar disinterest in the truth or a taste for low-quality infotainment as the conservative rabble.
The WSJ is still perfectly suitable for this, and you don't even have to sacrifice much wrt bias
As Steve Sailer has pointed out many times, you have to read the NYT backwards to find the good stuff that they hide from their target audience.
So do that! It's a shitty job of "hiding" if how they're hiding it is by you not finishing the paper you bought. There's no mechanism that stops you skipping a few articles or pages if they don't seem interesting.
It is safe to say that the NYT has damaged its prestige enough to be outright ignored by anyone who is not consciously reading it to confirm their worldview. I think Andrew Klavan is right when he calls them a "former newspaper." Some disgraceful moments off the top of my mind:
1. Its extremely misleading coverage of the mob that attacked Charles Murray at Middlebury College in 2017.
2. Doxxing Scott Alexander for basically no reason.
3. The 1619 Project (which is propaganda as much as anything put out by "fringe" far-right publications).
4. The entire debacle that ensued when they published an op-ed by Tom Cotton during the George Floyd protests, which nearly blew up the whole paper because an editor dared to stray from progressive orthodoxy for a brief moment.
This is a good example of the low-IQ epistemic nihilism that gave us a political movement led by Alex Jones and Catturd.
What do you mean? My post is low-IQ epistemic nihilism? What qualities exactly do you find so redeeming in the NYT that make it worth reading over papers or news sources that still maintain a record of journalistic integrity and are not outright deceptive? Making the argument that it is intellectually lazy to ignore a substantial publication outright might have some weight if it weren't behind a paywall.
What is the standard you're applying here? What news outlets meet it, and which don't?
I am not claiming that the Times is perfect, but I cannot think of a specific news source of similar scope I would consider to be more reliable or operating with more integrity
The WSJ or even the Washington Post, at this point, are far less scandal-ridden and have not lost their objectivity by blurring the line between the newsroom and the editorial boards. However, the issue is that the younger generation of activist journalists entering these papers are slowly forcing out older journalists who are less politically motivated, such as James Bennet and Marty Baron.
The ideal news source would be something like a smarter version of the Drudge Report which could aggregate actual high-quality journalism into a single place. The most significant barrier to that are the paywalls at these legacy papers. I know people like Arnold Kling have trained AI models to read articles and determine their objectivity and truthfulness. It would need to be something like that, built on a massive scale.
I am not on the right, but do not use the NYT as a source because it is paywalled. I am not going to link to a paywalled source (as some Substack writers do) to illustrate a point unless I absolutely have to.
If anything your article highlights the liberal leanings of the vast majority of US ‘news’ sources. Liberals can easily find articles written to appeal to their views. Conservatives read less MSM simply because there are fewer sources.
I would refer you to the Lab Leak Vs Zoonosis debate between Rootclaim and Peter Miller. It's 20 hours of debate in three parts, with $100,000 on the line each, where they do DEEP into each evidence point, going into the genetic structure of the virus, each purported first case, things like the Furin Cleavage Site, and a whole bunch of Bayesian shit (which is what Rootclaim claim shows lab leak was more likely).
The two judges were a microbiologist and a PhD mathematician respectively, chosen after an extensive process.
Zoonosis won (comfortably). The first 1/9th of the debate (each third is further split into thirds) convinced me lab leak was not possible.
Lab leak has become this kind of settled belief for many people but it's because it was simply said over and over by influential people like Trump. The evidence keeps pointing away from LL. It's just that there is no longer any public interest to re-evaluate beliefs en-masse.
Yeah what’s alarming to me is how predictable it’s become for right-wing influencers to keep pushing fake stories is. Of course Vance Boelter gets immediately framed as a “Democrat”because that version of reality was more useful (also distracts from his Christian nationalist ties) to maintain tribal unity/scapegoating. Once the narrative got traction, the original facts became irrelevant; the audience already decided what “must be” true. Sure, this helps prevent unity and maintain controlled tribes because nobody was disagreeing on whether what he did was wrong—it instead became about the fact that him being a conservative and having done something wrong was a threat, and that “had” to be countered with misinfo.
So the people peddling fake news come across as identity protectors and loyal friends to spare their followers from discomfort and cognitive dissonance, so that they in turn respond with trust and loyalty.
Why is it so hard to say “Yes he shared some of my political views, but clearly he does not my values. What he did was wrong and we don’t stand by it; he doesn’t represent us.”
Again we see how conservative media has become optimized for mimetic obedience without any scrap of concern for epistemic accuracy. The truth isn’t hard to find; it’s very obviously rejected because it threatens cohesion (and on a more individual level, is perceived as a threat to identity). Thus, figures like Musk or Mike Lee don’t even have to lie outright (even though they do), they can cast doubt, knowing their audience will resolve the ambiguity in the preferred direction that is more pleasing to the herd.
The pattern with much this fake news is that people stop asking “what happened, and why?”, and instead ask “which side benefits from this version of events? Which side is to blame (or—if I am against what happened, surely this is the other side’s fault).”
Once it’s deemed necessary to start reshaping reality fit the “brand,” they start actively training their audience to become more manipulable. That’s the scary part.
And not enough people (especially those who mocked COVID mask wearers by calling them “sheeple”, or warned that the “democrats are trying to make our country like Soviet Russia”) are disturbed and enraged by this.
The most shocking thing to me in the last graph is how much more polarized the Democrats are in their trust/distrust numbers. Republicans show more of a mix of trust and distrust for all their sources, but the Democrats really know which outlets are the Good Guys and which outlets are the Bad Guys. It's not just the mirror image of the Republicans' numbers.
I'm not sure if you meant that second-to-last sentence as a insult towards Democrats, but if you did, I would simply say that it rather shows that Democrats are more aware of the biases of those media, and that they don't have this cancerous default distrust for anything "liberal-coded" (or in their case, "right-wing-coded"). If there were a right-wing paper that was actually factual and trustworthy (as the WSJ has been called a few times), they'd likely trust it (and they DO trust the WSJ)