Judge Doughty could have dismissed the case without an opportunity for discovery, as another judge did in another NCLA case, Changizi v. HHS, involving the same sort of censorship. Judge Doughty understood, however, that a largely secret censorship system can’t be evaluated under the First Amendment until after discovery.
The Opinion Pages of the WSJ also tend to lean more conservative, while the news side leans liberal. Though they will happily publish people from the left, such as publishing President Biden: https://www.wsj.com/articles/never-bet-against-the-american-...
As with most News Corp outlets, the news side of the WSJ leans pretty far to the right (it did so even before it was a News Corp outlet, though not as much), it only seems “liberal” by comparison with its own opinion section.
That said, unlike, say, Fox News, the WSJ news side at least makes an effort to adhere to traditional journalistic norms, its right wing bias is more evident in agenda-setting (story selection, devotion of space, and placement/promotion), and less in commentary and outright fabrications in “news” content.
For example: https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/Do_97_percent_of_journali... Somewhere between 87-94% of political donations from journalists goes to Democrats. Wikipedia links some more polls that show similar things (though not as stark): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_State...
When you have a profession that leans one way, most reporting likely follows. So while WSJ news seems conservative, it's positions compared to the general public's views leans slightly left. (Though after reading WSJ for many years now, it highly depends on the reporter).
the wsj opinion section has gone wildly off the rails.
love their journalism. can't read half the crap they allow to be published in opeds.
at a minimum, is it too much to not publish outright provable lies?
it actually feels like a similar persecution complex vibe to these lawsuits and congressional hearings to me
that somehow if we aren't forced to listen to them, or that their megaphone isn't as loud as it once was, that they are being persecuted and censored with the most orwellian oppression in the history of our country! (i can think of a lot of truly terrible things our govt has done... literal internment camps and more! but that is besides the point)
no one has silenced them. we continue to hear it constantly.
i hear more anti gay slurs now - on traditional media and online - than i ever remember growing up as a very obviously gay boy ;0
if anything, whenever someone crows about being 'cancelled' their message is spread even farther.
there isn't a right to amplification.
the next door kook was never promised a full page column in the local paper. with a guaranteed readership of thousands or millions.
any truth filter or higher bar for discourse that might have existed in legacy news media has been smashed
news corp is the leader and biggest offender
the democratization of the megaphone (internet gives any random conspiracist opportunity to reach more than cronkite did), has given many the impression that they are owed this power to yell and be guaranteed a listening and receptive audience.
and anything less is cancelation or "censorship."
I'd love to hear some examples. From what I can tell, they don't lie, but they will leave out details that may provide additional context (much like the NYT and WP opinion pages tend to do).
There is a careful line between opinions and facts. From what I can tell, the editorial board doesn't allow outright facts that can be disputed from being published. But things where there may be a disagreement on a given topic, they will allow it to be published.
