Search for a Journalist:
Articles about the work of Gordon Crovitz

Bloomberg Versus Crovitz
futureofcapitalism.com

For 180-degree opposite views of the Google-China conflict, check out Gordon Crovitz's column in the Wall Street Journal this morning and a Bloomberg News piece masquerading as a news article. Mr. Crovitz portrays Google as the winner, in a "surprising victory":

Beijing compromised. It let Google continue to operate in China if it tweaked its mainland search box by asking users if they still want to be sent to the Hong Kong site. This is a minor inconvenience, and one that will constantly remind mainland Chinese they can choose between the censored and uncensored Internet, a marketing benefit to Google that advertising can't buy.

Read More...


Crovitz Versus Wikileaks
futureofcapitalism.com

Gordon Crovitz sides with Charles Krauthammer and David Brooks against the New York Sun and Lee Smith in the divide within the pro-freedom camp over Wikileaks.

I know and like Mr. Crovitz, but I don't find his criticisms of Wikileaks here particularly persuasive.

He writes, "The irony is that WikiLeaks' use of technology to post confidential U.S. government documents will certainly result in a less free flow of information. .... This batch includes 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables, the kind of confidential assessments diplomats have written since the era of wax seals. These include Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah urging the U.S. to end Iran's nuclear ambitions—to 'cut the head off the snake.' This alignment with the Israeli-U.S. position is not for public consumption in the Arab world, which is why leaks will curtail honest discussions."

Read More...


Wkileaks and Zimbabwe
futureofcapitalism.com

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Gordon Crovitz takes up an anti-Wikileaks argument earlier proffered by Jamie Kirchick. Mr. Crovitz writes:

For defenders of WikiLeaks who claim there's been no harm done: Do you really want to support one of the world's most repressive regimes? Robert Mugabe had his thugs disrupt the 2008 elections in Zimbabwe, but in a compromise, opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai was made prime minister. One leaked State Department cable reports that Mr. Tsvangirai in 2009 pleaded with U.S. and European diplomats to maintain sanctions, which focused on the assets of the Mugabe regime, in order to keep pressure for political reform. He acknowledged that in public he felt obliged to call for an end to the sanctions. Mr. Mugabe's appointed attorney general is now investigating Mr. Tsvangirai for treason.

Read More...


Crovitz on Ad Privacy
futureofcapitalism.com

Gordon Crovitz is almost certainly right that we don't need more laws or government regulations on Internet privacy, especially related to advertising, but his column today arguing that point is humorous (I think unintentionally so, but Mr. Crovitz is so smart and has such a good sense of humor that you never know) on two fronts.

Start with the question in the column: "If most Americans are happy to have Facebook accounts, knowingly trading personal information for other benefits, why is Washington so focused on new privacy laws?" Gee, there is a real stumper. Might it possibly have anything to do with the fact that the largest-circulation newspaper in the country — the same one in which Mr. Crovitz's column appears — has been running a 15-part series campaigning on the topic?

Then comes this:

Read More...


Crovitz on Wikileaks and the NY Times
futureofcapitalism.com

In the Wall Street Journal, Gordon Crovitz tries to explain why Wikileaks is different from the New York Times:

The Espionage Act requires willfully endangering the U.S. It may seem unusual to consider intent in the context of how information flows, but without focusing on intent, the law would raise serious First Amendment issues. Many academics and media commentators—and perhaps overly cautious prosecutors—have missed the point that WikiLeaks is different from the New York Times. It's the political motivation of Mr. Assange that qualifies him to be prosecuted.

Right, it's not like the New York Times has any political motivation. Not like the paper, say, publishes editorials expressing strong opinions on political matters. Or like the reporters or editors there have any opinions.

Read More...


The Best Piece Yet on Occupy Wall Street
futureofcapitalism.com

What a wonderful Wall Street Journal editorial page to start off the week!

Gordon Crovitz, who lives a block away from the Occupy Wall Street protest, has written THE best piece yet anywhere about it. He quotes a letter from the owner of the property being occupied: "Complaints range from outrage over numerous laws being broken including but not limited to lewdness, groping, drinking and drug use to the lack of safe access to and usage of the park, to the ongoing noise at all hours, to unsanitary conditions and to offensive odors."

Amity Shlaes has a fine column about how some developments in the late 1970s helped set the stage for the boom of the 1980s and thereafter. Her point about "the Steiger Amendment, which halved the capital gains rate, to an effective 25%," is particularly well taken.

Read More...


Current TV Al Jazeera
futureofcapitalism.com

Gordon Crovitz has a really wonderful Wall Street Journal article about Al Jazeera, the television network to which Al Gore chose to sell Current TV. The sale provides Mr. Gore with a reported $100 million (his partners got another $400 million), and it provides Al Jazeera with something it had long sought, which is access to American cable viewers. My favorite paragraph of Mr. Crovitz's article is this one:

Read More...


Current TV Al Jazeera
futureofcapitalism.com

Gordon Crovitz has a really wonderful Wall Street Journal article about Al Jazeera, the television network to which Al Gore chose to sell Current TV. The sale provides Mr. Gore with a reported $100 million (his partners got another $400 million), and it provides Al Jazeera with something it had long sought, which is access to American cable viewers. My favorite paragraph of Mr. Crovitz's article is this one:

Read More...


The Best Piece Yet on Occupy Wall Street
futureofcapitalism.com

What a wonderful Wall Street Journal editorial page to start off the week!

Gordon Crovitz, who lives a block away from the Occupy Wall Street protest, has written THE best piece yet anywhere about it. He quotes a letter from the owner of the property being occupied: "Complaints range from outrage over numerous laws being broken including but not limited to lewdness, groping, drinking and drug use to the lack of safe access to and usage of the park, to the ongoing noise at all hours, to unsanitary conditions and to offensive odors."

Amity Shlaes has a fine column about how some developments in the late 1970s helped set the stage for the boom of the 1980s and thereafter. Her point about "the Steiger Amendment, which halved the capital gains rate, to an effective 25%," is particularly well taken.

Read More...


Bloomberg Versus Crovitz
futureofcapitalism.com

For 180-degree opposite views of the Google-China conflict, check out Gordon Crovitz's column in the Wall Street Journal this morning and a Bloomberg News piece masquerading as a news article. Mr. Crovitz portrays Google as the winner, in a "surprising victory":

Beijing compromised. It let Google continue to operate in China if it tweaked its mainland search box by asking users if they still want to be sent to the Hong Kong site. This is a minor inconvenience, and one that will constantly remind mainland Chinese they can choose between the censored and uncensored Internet, a marketing benefit to Google that advertising can't buy.

Read More...


Crovitz Versus Wikileaks
futureofcapitalism.com

Gordon Crovitz sides with Charles Krauthammer and David Brooks against the New York Sun and Lee Smith in the divide within the pro-freedom camp over Wikileaks.

I know and like Mr. Crovitz, but I don't find his criticisms of Wikileaks here particularly persuasive.

He writes, "The irony is that WikiLeaks' use of technology to post confidential U.S. government documents will certainly result in a less free flow of information. .... This batch includes 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables, the kind of confidential assessments diplomats have written since the era of wax seals. These include Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah urging the U.S. to end Iran's nuclear ambitions—to 'cut the head off the snake.' This alignment with the Israeli-U.S. position is not for public consumption in the Arab world, which is why leaks will curtail honest discussions."

Read More...


Wkileaks and Zimbabwe
futureofcapitalism.com

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Gordon Crovitz takes up an anti-Wikileaks argument earlier proffered by Jamie Kirchick. Mr. Crovitz writes:

For defenders of WikiLeaks who claim there's been no harm done: Do you really want to support one of the world's most repressive regimes? Robert Mugabe had his thugs disrupt the 2008 elections in Zimbabwe, but in a compromise, opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai was made prime minister. One leaked State Department cable reports that Mr. Tsvangirai in 2009 pleaded with U.S. and European diplomats to maintain sanctions, which focused on the assets of the Mugabe regime, in order to keep pressure for political reform. He acknowledged that in public he felt obliged to call for an end to the sanctions. Mr. Mugabe's appointed attorney general is now investigating Mr. Tsvangirai for treason.

Read More...


Crovitz on Ad Privacy
futureofcapitalism.com

Gordon Crovitz is almost certainly right that we don't need more laws or government regulations on Internet privacy, especially related to advertising, but his column today arguing that point is humorous (I think unintentionally so, but Mr. Crovitz is so smart and has such a good sense of humor that you never know) on two fronts.

Start with the question in the column: "If most Americans are happy to have Facebook accounts, knowingly trading personal information for other benefits, why is Washington so focused on new privacy laws?" Gee, there is a real stumper. Might it possibly have anything to do with the fact that the largest-circulation newspaper in the country — the same one in which Mr. Crovitz's column appears — has been running a 15-part series campaigning on the topic?

Then comes this:

Read More...


Crovitz on Wikileaks and the NY Times
futureofcapitalism.com

In the Wall Street Journal, Gordon Crovitz tries to explain why Wikileaks is different from the New York Times:

The Espionage Act requires willfully endangering the U.S. It may seem unusual to consider intent in the context of how information flows, but without focusing on intent, the law would raise serious First Amendment issues. Many academics and media commentators—and perhaps overly cautious prosecutors—have missed the point that WikiLeaks is different from the New York Times. It's the political motivation of Mr. Assange that qualifies him to be prosecuted.

Right, it's not like the New York Times has any political motivation. Not like the paper, say, publishes editorials expressing strong opinions on political matters. Or like the reporters or editors there have any opinions.

Read More...


To Add an Article Link, please sign in.

First time here? Register Free as a New User.

Write a Review of work by this Journalist

To post your review, please sign in.

First time here? Register Free as a New User.

Post a prediction made by this Journalist

To post a prediction, please sign in.

First time here? Register Free as a New User.

Gordon Crovitz

Age:

Facebook Page:
Twitter Account:
Phone Number:
Email Address:
Country:
Frequent Topics of Writing:
Media Outlets:
Work History:
Websites/Blogs:
Educational History:
Voter registration/Party affiliation:
Charities:
Professional Network/Frequent Sources:
Personal Network/Friends and Allies:

Sign In

Email:

Password:

Or via Facebook  

Register as a New User

© 2018 FutureOfCapitalism, LLC.

Home   |   About   |   Browse Journalists   |   Terms of Service   |   Privacy Policy

Smartertimes  |  FutureOfCapitalism.com