This morning's assortment, on the kitchen table. The NYT, the WaPo, and the WSJ all have page-one reports about the House Republicans' decision not to force an all-out fight on the next extension of the federal debt ceiling. The Post's story is on the bottom of its front page, which is why you don't see its masthead.

The NYT says that the Republicans have "reversed" course

says that the Republicans have "reversed" course The Washington Post says they have "altered" their plans

says they have "altered" their plans The WSJ says simply that they the Republicans are proposing a solution to the debt-ceiling problem. A few paragraphs into the story it explains, as the others do, that this is "the clearest sign yet Republicans are backing away" from a debt-ceiling fight. But that is not what a scan of the story's headline and subhead would indicate.



Interesting. In covering exactly the same development:

As with two previous examples, here and here, bear in mind that these are news headlines, not the editorial page. Also as in the previous two cases, the play and billing of the WSJ stories (and opposed to the details in the stories themselves) are more "Republican" than in the other two papers.



For years observers have noted the difference in tone and evident partisanship between the WSJ's news operations and its editorial pages. Essay question: Under Rupert Murdoch are we seeing a continued "harmonization" of the varied parts of the WSJ empire?

