Abstract Art Comes to Journalism By Jimmy Petrol

If I write something and you cannot tell what I am saying, cannot see the picture I am drawing with my words, you do not call it ‘abstract writing'; you call it bad writing.

Of course, that's just the way it is because of the precision of words; it is the nature of writing to clarify, not obfuscate, right?

Oddly, there is a large and proud cadre of writers on this planet whose job it is to write things and paint a picture that is not accurate. Rather, they are paid to draw conclusions that are not supported by fact, present them in such an artful and ‘abstract' manner as to make it appear that what they are saying is true.

I allude most directly to the Wall Street Journal.

It has been my privilege to make the intimate acquaintance of a number of intelligent people with whom I have differences of ‘point of view'. I say it this way because I do not think that we actually have any differences of consequence in matters moral; we just have a different point of view (they read the Wall Street Journal) which results in a different end view on various matters.

Take ‘What Women Want'.

My point of reference , vis-a-vis women and what they may want, comes from canvassing (sometimes against my will, I admit) the views of various women who, from time to time, have tried to get what they want out of me. Not being a woman myself, I am hampered somewhat in my abilities to get this stuff right on my own and find I am required to listen, not tell.

The Wall Street Journal is onto this too. Being smart guys over there, they are down with the idea of the survey. They also know that the interpretation of any survey can give various results; it just takes a little intellectual dishonesty to get ‘em. That is no problem for The Journal; the paycheck and the grand feeling of superiority they must get from misinterpreting facts to provide justification to their troubled readers provides the incentive....training in the art of debate from a college or university provides the expertise and the Devil does the rest.

Here's the scoop.

The Journal surveyed some women. I do not doubt that proper protocol was followed. The results are not surprising; only the Journal's interpretation is at question.

The Journal found, when they asked women to list the things that were important to them, in the order of that importance, that women value things like family and health first.

They don't get down to wanting ‘equal pay for equal work until a few lines down. Very close to the top, but not quite number one. This is all the ‘men' at the Journal need; with this survey and a little intellectual dishonesty, they can help hold the line on the "tire old litany" of equal pay for equal work.

Clearly, says the Journal, hiding a Cheshire smile, equal pay for equal work is unimportant.....women want time with the family first...they don't mention equal pay as number one.......so there is no need to service this terrible wrong.... women don't care...well, then why, we don't have to pay them!

What a revelation! What a scoop! Thank the Gods for the insightful and intelligent writers and editors at the Wall Street Journal.

By their logic, since women don't mention it at the very top of the list, I'm guessing that the Barons at the Journal would not consider it amiss to grab a little booty from the underpaid ‘Executive Assistant'...I mean, if it were important to them, they would say so right up front, yes?

Intellectual dishonesty from a well-paid journalist is probably all we can expect. It certainly is what we get from the smart-but-morally-bankrupt editorialists at the Journal.

For more miss-information and the good news on the infinite planetary resources, the real causes of poverty, et all, get a copy of the Journal today. Don't buy it. Steal it. It is no more dishonest and certainly within the realm of reason to attack the paper in any way one can. Dishonesty like this is nothing short of evil.