I've always thought it's because making money trumps yay-team politics among their readers. Their readers want to know what the passage of a bill truly means -- so they can try to make a buck.
I've always thought it's because making money trumps yay-team politics among their readers. Their readers want to know what the passage of a bill truly means -- so they can try to make a buck.
I think that's true, of course, but articles about company earnings, FICC price moves etc. aren't really the types of articles where political bias or dishonest narratives appear in the first place and the types of stories where political bias would tend to influence the coverage aren't really the type that inform investment decisions.
I've always thought it's because making money trumps yay-team politics among their readers. Their readers want to know what the passage of a bill truly means -- so they can try to make a buck.
I think that's true, of course, but articles about company earnings, FICC price moves etc. aren't really the types of articles where political bias or dishonest narratives appear in the first place and the types of stories where political bias would tend to influence the coverage aren't really the type that inform investment decisions.
The old saying...money talks...still have the WSJ, NYT is gone, gave up on WaPo and spend more on substack / Rogan etc.