[weard_beard]

The current administration's poor messaging on inflation and the economic problems faced by many Americans was a significant contributing factor to their loss of the election. (https://www.barrons.com/articles/economy-2024-election-why-h...)

The WSJ and other major publications have a vested interest in brokering access by tailoring their coverage to be friendly to those in power. They are largely responsible for setting the agenda and tone of issues during an election.

(https://archive.pagecentertraining.psu.edu/public-relations-...)

Given these two factual statements... The stated stance of the current administration was to downplay the impact and scale of economic hardship, and the role of major media outlets during an election is to set out the agenda and issues to be debated during an election period...

I think it clearly follows that the WSJ had a vested interest in providing one perspective on the economy before and during the election, and now that this period is over, they can provide a different perspective more aligned with the perspective of the working class, and less aligned with the perspective of the incumbent administration.

[gruez]

>The WSJ and other major publications have a vested interest in brokering access by tailoring their coverage to be friendly to those in power

Are you thinking of the Washington Post? You realize that the WSJ has been described as "right-centrist"[1]? It's unclear why they'd want to support a Democratic administration. Even the "friendly to those in power" excuse doesn't work too well. For most of the election Trump was leading in election models, and near the end it was a coin toss. Being anti-Biden and pro-Trump would be the rational choice, even if they were apolitical and just wanted to be "friendly to those in power"

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal#Editor...

[Ferret7446]

The earth has also been described as flat.

You see how your wording is not very convincing (and Wikipedia is heavily left biased, in case you thought your citation has any weight).

While I can see how "the WSJ has been described as "right-centrist"", the Overton window has shifted so much so rapidly that the WSJ is now comfortably slightly left leaning based on the "old" political spectrum (and by "old" I mean pre-2020 or so).

(But that's just, like, my opinion man.)

[weard_beard]

To my ears, this is like my 10 year old nephew explaining why his favorite pro wrestler would never be a heel. "Also", he asks, "what's a heel?"

[gruez]

For the benefit of people who doesn't watch wrestling, do you mind explaining why the WSJ would support an administration at the end of its term and was likely to lose? Or for that matter, why "major publications" like the new york times have no problem with making anti-incumbent endorsements[1], despite the claim that "The WSJ and other major publications have a vested interest in brokering access by tailoring their coverage to be friendly to those in power"? Whatever you said about "heels" sounds like a "heads I win, tails you loose" sort of proposition, where you can excuse any sort of counter-evidence as part of a greater ruse or whatever, making your theory basically unfalsifiable.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...

[kev009]

A simple translation on the transactional relationship: because they know who butters their bread, and they know they can waffle into the next administration or current thing as long as they stay in the general good graces of the intelligence apparatus. It's wet behind the ears view a major news agency as anything other than an extension of the intelligence apparatus. Whatever supposed political leaning is symbolic and minuscule in the overall influence of direction and probably tied to useful wetness of ear of the hosts ego and not the overall apparatus. The heel comment could be likened to a hammer and anvil, with one party playing each role and the roles alternate over time but an overarching direction is being achieved by higher level thinkers.