> It's not so apparent in the online version, if you haven't read it before.

I think this is the core issue that leads to sentiment like OPs. Real news still exists, but it's the highly editorialized and opinionated articles that are shared more widely. News agencies universally are terrible at obviously differentiating the two to users.

99% of people when they open an article scroll directly to the content. But any discerning features (in this case, a small font A-hed link) are tucked way at the top. In this case, the A-hed link takes you to the A-hed home page but still does not offer any context to what A-hed is.

> So you don't have to worry that it's some broad decline in journalistic standards (at least based on this).

As long as the WSJ does such a bad job at separating "WSJ the proper news room" and "A-hed the not proper news room", their brand will suffer. OP is proof of that, and I think it's safe to assume the average HN reader is more astute than the average citizen. A tiny link to nowhere useful is not enough of a UI change for us to blame the user. The onus is on the news agencies to do a better job giving context for articles.

Is it the news agency's fault, or the reader's fault? In this case, it really isn't clear that it's not "real news". But I see plenty of people on social media sharing articles from news sites where they're clearly marked as an editorial or opinion piece, and believing or treating them as if they were exactly the same as a news article that attempts to paint a neutral picture of the facts.

Do newspapers need to put an explanation of what an opinion piece is at the top of every opinion piece?

Perhaps newspapers should stop running opinions and editorials altogether, or move them to an entirely different brand.

I don't really think that's the answer. Actual physical newspapers ran editorials / opinions for decades without a problem. I think the solution is better UI/UX.

A separate brand would be a better UX.

It's clear that internet distribution is very different from physical newspapers and people don't pay much attention to the domain and styling.

IMO, it is the news agency's responsibility to make it absolutely clear to the user what they are reading. If a majority of people come away with the wrong understanding after visiting a website, that is the website's fault. It's a clear UX problem.

Old paper newspapers accomplished this by physically having a separate section for opinion pieces. It's a harder problem when people share direct links to an article.

That said, news agencies don't try very hard. I think it's easy to argue they intentionally make it hard to differentiate. If WSJ really cared about making it clear to the user what this article was, they would have done more than hiding the word "A-hed" in a small font in the top corner.

Amen. Learning how to read the news is a skill just like everything else. The direct links of the internet make it harder, but one still needs to try and understand the context of the publication and how the article is presented. A-heads are entertainment.

This is the "You are holding it wrong" opinion I guess.

If A-heads are entertainment then why does it say A-head and not Entertainment? I am not at fault here if I don't know what the hell A-head is supposed to mean and just think that this news site is kinda garbage.

What exactly about the presentation of this article was I supposed to pick up on and see that it is entertainment. It is the exact same presentation than their "U.S. Seeks to Seize Iranian Fuel Bound for Venezuela" article. Is that one news or is it also entertainment?

This is a very literal approach. I assume that when you watch network TV you assume everything is coming at you with the same purpose and intent (news, talking head show, some documentary like 60 minutes.) Just because you want everything you read online to be "hard news" doesn't mean it will be. It takes a bit of work to understand the context of what you are seeing. So yes, you are holding it wrong.

What are you talking about? NO, I do not assume everything on the TV has the same intent. I never said anything even remotely close to that. I do however assume that if I am watching the news that I get the news.

I also don't want to be everything online to be "hard news", but when I go to a newspaper site I expect it to be news if it isn't otherwise noted. No the cryptic "A-Head" does not count. I am not a news insider and I think it is completely inappropriate to demand from the consumer to learn such cryptic jargon.

You said this:

> one still needs to try and understand the context of the publication and how the article is presented.

The context of the publication is that it is an article on the Wall Street Journal which is a business focused Newspaper and the Presentation of the article is exactly the same as the rest.

How is it my error then that I think an article like this is just garbage. (Hint: If your customers think your product is garbage then you need to do something about it and not just say "You are holding it wrong".)

> The WSJ is one of the few quite reputable news rooms out there.

The WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch. The credibility of their newsroom begins being compromised by his owning it. He will destroy its credibility utterly by selling it for politicial influence in news reporting. Just as he has everywhere he has bought media. The particular example of compromised credibility that comes to mind is the Times of London which is now Murdoch propaganda (all be it vastly more polite than fox news) where it used to do credible news reporting. Times reporting now can still be excellent but has a "be cautious" flag on it that it used not to have in the days prior to Mudoch. The man has become vastly worse in the past couple of decades as has everything he touches.

Murdoch bought the WSJ in 2007. When is he going to start destroying its credibility "utterly"?

Uh have you read their commentary/opinions? Half the time they come off as if they're trolling.

I'm sure at one point they were a thinking man's newspaper. At this point they're just fan service for people who have drunk the koolaid but can't stomach Fox's mass market approach.

To be fair the WSJ has always had some pretty outlandish opinion pieces. The tradition was that these were separate to the news reporting and the news reporting was untouched by them. But now it's in Murdoch stable. Sad.

He started in 2007. The date when you consider it utterly destroyed is up to the reader.

I feel like he hasn't taken any actions to compromise the credibility of the Journal. Remember their Theranos coverage? Wikipedia writes: "Elizabeth Holmes asked Rupert Murdoch —- who at the time was a major investor in Theranos and owner of the Journal — to "personally kill" an investigative piece being written about Theranos. Murdoch refused, instead stating that he "had confidence in editors to handle the truth - whatever it may be". Murdoch went on to lose approximately $100 million in his investments in Theranos."

The opinion columns slant very far right, and I'm sure Murdoch has played some role in that. I subscribe to the Journal and am outraged every time I see them. But, it's good to see what other people are talking about. It does you no harm to read an opinion column that you vehemently disagree with. I'm sure people feel the same way about opinion columns in The New York Times, which I also read and tend to agree with.

My TL;DR here is that if you are interested in the news, you should get it from a variety of reputable sources. The Journal has proved over the years that it is reputable. I haven't seen anything recently that would change my mind. I have friends that get all their news through social media and they are constantly outraged based on pure misinformation. If they read the Journal, they'd have a much better understanding of the facts. (Same goes for the New York Times, or Washington Post, or The Guardian.)

All of the links to the A-hed section in the WSJ article link to a 404. Is there an updated link?

https://www.wsj.com/news/types/a-hed works for me right now, as do all of these:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/baseball-stadiums-major-league-... "Baseball Stadiums Are Closed to Fans—but This Guy’s Balcony Is Open for Business"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/americans-ponder-how-to-throw-a... "Americans Ponder How to Throw a Party"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-do-doctors-treating-coronav... "How Do Doctors Treating Coronavirus Relax? By Playing the Game ‘Pandemic’"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-scientist-turned-the-coronavi... "A Scientist Turned the Coronavirus Into Music—Here’s What It Sounds Like"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-covid-15-lockdowns-are-lift... "The Covid 15: Lockdowns Are Lifting, and Our Clothes Don’t Fit"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/oversize-sneakers-are-hot-but-v... "Oversize Sneakers Are Hot but Very Hard to Wear. ‘I Just Can’t Balance.’"

All the news doesn't have to be serious. Hope you didn't miss the WSJ's reporting on Theranos which potentially saved lives by exposing Theranos' fraudulent lab tests.

They tried very hard to kill guy’s reputation by calling him nazi and falsifying facts. Those news were supposed to be taken seriously.

I’d even say that they were taken seriously, but in the sense that WSJ didn’t expected.