Murdoch's finally convinced enough Bancrofts to sell.
 

http://online.wsj.com/public/us

...Aaaaaand there goes the country's best newspaper. So, after the online-minded redesign and Murdoch's likely tampering with the company, where are conservatives supposed to get their news? Can anyone help me?

I'd suggest becoming a libertarian.

Because that would help with finding news how?

Well if he defines his news by his political identity, Reason is as good as any.

Diversify your sources. Find several reputable publications, such as the Economist, National Review, Reason (as already mentioned), and so forth . . . and maybe throw in several blogs while you're at it, to get some more individually flavored punditry.

In all seriousness, Andrew Sullivan is pretty cool beans.

Psh. I've worked for those guys. I'll pass.

Oh, I subscribe to the 1st 2 (though I'm not a fan of weblogs). I'm talking about substantial, daily news sources, though, especially physical copies.

See the 2nd sentence above. I mean, I have the Telegraph and Yomiuri Shimbun (and so on) in other countries, but I'm not going to get good stuff from the New York Times or Washington Post. All other sources concentrate too much on regional happenings, I think.

I'm just a dumb liberal hippie, here, so can anyone explain to me how Rupert Murdoch can possibly make a newspaper less conservative-minded?

Everything the man touches goes absolutely paleolithic.

It sounds to me like he was complaining he can't get a paper copy after Murdoch moves it online. Perhaps he is more conservative than this Murdoch fellow.

Personally, I'm beginning to feel that text on paper is a fossil.

You, uh, you're only talking about newspapers, right? Because ebooks are crap for actual reading (if valuable for textsearches).

How are ebooks shit for reading? Everyone says this, but no one gives reasons. I find them preferable.

Can't read an e-book lying down, baby.

I wasn't actually implying that, though others have suggested that he make it more centrist and luxury-minded to grab some of the New 'york Times' marketshare.

I meant that he'll tamper with the brilliant reporting, too, ruining the best conservative-minded (or, as I'd argue, absolute best) newpaper in the nation. Many don't want to waste the subscription and premium content costs on agenda-driven advocacy journalism.

Yeah, we wouldn't want the WSJ to have an agenda

Wait, didn't you just call it "conservative-minded"

Do you know what agenda means

Agree. Let's stop killing trees, please.

Wow I like how this deal will totally fuck up US freedom of press

How will it 'totally fuck up US freedom of the press'?

Rupert Murdoch and News Corp aren't the U.S. gov't.

An angenda is something you disagree with of course!

I'm not sure what's scarier, the existance of overtly biased, mainstream newspapers or the existance of people who insist on reading them.

It's not as bad as it sounds, really. Conservative leaning papers are going to run stories that will interest conservatives, and their op/eds will also take conservative slants from the perspective of the editors.

The problem is when fake journalism is traipsed around like A Weekend at Bernie's in order to push the political agendas of the controlling interest. See also: Fox News.

Because the increasing consolidation of US Media Sources into one or two companies allows a small select group of people to control national press coverage?

Where I come from, there is only ONE daily newspaper. You guys whould just be grateful.

That's the case in a lot of America as well. Only incredibly large cities can support multiple newspapers.

Big City papers around here distribute regionally. My town, for instance, can get the Tulsa World daily in addition to our shitty ass local paper.

My thoughts exactly.

My pops swears by the paper as it comes on the doorstep every morning, but I swear by the internet. Its easier to choose where I am getting information from, though that hardly makes any news 'spinless'. As long as there is a story that requires funding to print, there is an agenda behind it.

That has nothing to do with the Freedom of the Press. I mean, it does, but when I hear someone invoking Freedom of the Press, I think government infringement, which is all I really give a damn about.

What private corporations do, as long as it doesn't adversely affect me or others, I could really give a shit about. If Murdoch has the money and the willingness to buy and others have the willingness to sell, what's the fucking problem?