>>1342476
Pretty shit. I had it for 15 weeks or so. Old news desu. I use news aggregators now and only read for information. Commentary is useless.

>>1342476
bump

>>1342476
I personally read it everyday. Love the opinion section.

it's owned by news corporation lol
read the new york times instead

>>1342504
What aggregators do you use?

>>1342906
>read the new york times instead

Why? I seems overly liberal. I just wan unpartisan, non biased news.

>>1342912
Then just stick with seeking alpha.

The ft, the economist, even the motley fool are bias now.

>>1342912
wallstreet journal is owned by the same company that owns fox news and you're worried about the nyt being politically biased?
the nyt isn't perfect (there's incessant anti-trump shilling) but it's on a much higher level than every other news source out there
it's been around forever, and it's not owned by any other company

>>1342922
>Then just stick with seeking alpha.

What did he mean by this?

>>1342926
https://www.google.com/search?q=seeking+alpha&oq=seeking+alpha&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l4j69i61&sourceid=chrome-mobile&espv=1&ie=UTF-8#scso=uid_0:32

>>1342906
The WSJ actually saves New York's reputation. The NYT has become an ideological toilet paper. It's basically "Der Stürmer" for left-wingers.

I used to read it every day.
Learned a lot.
Price went from 2 dollars to 3 dollars a day.

Learned not to invest 3 dollars today on something that will be worth zero tomorrow.

>>1344226
pls be more edgy

>>1342476
I prefer the Financial Times, it's less parochial (less America-centric), and is a joy to read in general.

>>1342504
What aggregators do you use

I subscribe to Barron's. It feels unbiased to me, the price is worth the information you receive both online and in print form weekly

>>1347215
How's the reporting? Can it hold a candle to WSJ?