Are you thinking of the Washington Post? You realize that the WSJ has been described as "right-centrist"[1]? It's unclear why they'd want to support a Democratic administration. Even the "friendly to those in power" excuse doesn't work too well. For most of the election Trump was leading in election models, and near the end it was a coin toss. Being anti-Biden and pro-Trump would be the rational choice, even if they were apolitical and just wanted to be "friendly to those in power"
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal#Editor...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...
You see how your wording is not very convincing (and Wikipedia is heavily left biased, in case you thought your citation has any weight).
While I can see how "the WSJ has been described as "right-centrist"", the Overton window has shifted so much so rapidly that the WSJ is now comfortably slightly left leaning based on the "old" political spectrum (and by "old" I mean pre-2020 or so).
(But that's just, like, my opinion man.)
The WSJ and other major publications have a vested interest in brokering access by tailoring their coverage to be friendly to those in power. They are largely responsible for setting the agenda and tone of issues during an election.
(https://archive.pagecentertraining.psu.edu/public-relations-...)
Given these two factual statements... The stated stance of the current administration was to downplay the impact and scale of economic hardship, and the role of major media outlets during an election is to set out the agenda and issues to be debated during an election period...
I think it clearly follows that the WSJ had a vested interest in providing one perspective on the economy before and during the election, and now that this period is over, they can provide a different perspective more aligned with the perspective of the working class, and less aligned with the perspective of the incumbent administration.