This is reminiscent of Jérôme's usual point about The Economist: that it contains useful information and analysis, even if its editorial line is militantly pro-liberal. This is not surprising: journals of record and repute like The Economist and the WSJ would not be efficient as propaganda outlets if they ceased to act as journals of record and repute. So it's entirely to be expected that certain reporting standards should be maintained.

However, with Robert Bartley's editorial tenure in the '70s, '80s, and '90s, and since, the WSJ has consistently used its stature as America's financial newspaper of record to disseminate, among the serious people that constitute its readership, radically pro-business and liberal-economic views. Chomsky here mocks the editorials as "comic strip", and yet they have carried out their function in the manufacture of an ultra-liberal common wisdom. The op-ed Cyrille refers to is just one more in a long line.

And the quality of reporting may be called in question, especially since Murdoch's takeover. According to Barry Ritholtz (yesterday) (click over there to see the headline he objects to):

Wall Street Journal Fail | The Big Picture

The Wall Street Journal was once the greatest American newspaper. Sure, the OpEd writers were insane idealogues, and there was the occasional drunk or pederast on the masthead. But overall, the quality of the writing was so good, and the objective look at business so sharp, investors could rely on it.

Today, Fox News seems to write the headlines. The influence of the partisan editorials has completely overtaken the entire paper.

In other words, to investors, it has become a gnarly mess of unreliable, EXPENSIVE partisan bias. Nothing is trustworthy on its pages anymore.