# Little Ed in the WSJ **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [March 8, 2001, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-ed-in-the-wsj/57234 "2001-03-08T16:15:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Billdo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billdo/32/315_2.png) [@Billdo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billdo)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-ed-in-the-wsj/57234/1 "2001-03-08T16:15:37Z")
In today’s Staff Report, [What’s the origin of “hot dog”?](http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhotdog.html), our all-around main man and prophet at Cecil’s right hand Ed Zotti takes a stab at answering this age-old question. In doing so, he quotes himself from an article in the _Wall Street Journal_ from January 2, 2001. Putting aside the issue of his feeding us reruns of his warmed-over research, what’s Ed doing writing for the WSJ? Do the head honchos at the _Chicago Reader_? Does Cecil know this? (Well, of course he does, he knows everything.) More important, is Ed a WSJ regular? Does this mean that I’m going to have to pick up the Journal to get more than the meagre crumbs of his wisdom that he dispenses to us here? What’s a Little Ed fan to do? ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-ed-in-the-wsj/57234/2 "2001-03-08T16:42:36Z")
Ed also had an article in the WSJ back around end of November, about racing homing pigeons. ---
**Author:** ![whitetho](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whitetho/32/1059_2.png) [@whitetho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whitetho)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-ed-in-the-wsj/57234/3 "2001-03-08T19:43:45Z")
My theory is that the _Chicago Reader_ is quietly preparing to launch a hostile takeover of AOL _et al._, to get back at them for dropping the old message board. Little Ed at the WSJ is their advance team. ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2001, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-ed-in-the-wsj/57234/4 "2001-03-09T06:36:33Z")
This collumn can at last be used to settle the great question of whether Cecil is really Little Ed (or whether Little Ed is really Cecil)! Don’t bother calling Don Foster ([who?](http://www.salon.com/books/review/2000/11/02/foster/)); there’s no point. Cecil _can’t_ be Little Ed. Cecil would _never_ write for the WSJ. He’s always been disdainful of large media. Why else would he write all these years for the _Reader_, when he could obviously be using his omnicience to pull in big bucks from CNN or Time. They’d **kill** to get Cecil. On top of that, Cecil (like all inteligent people) is a liberal. A somewhat moderate liberal, I would judge, but a liberal to be sure. He would sooner drink from a glass after Slug than have anything to do with a reactionary bastion of capitalism like the WSJ. Quite frankly, I’m amazed that he would let Little Ed sully the good name of the Straight Dope by writing for them, but I suppose he only has so much control over Ed. Maybe Ed is tired of playing second fiddle to greatness and is looking to sell out. If he keeps up with this sort of thing, I imagine Cecil will leave him no choice. * * * I have fixed the link, at Alan’s request.-- CKDH [Edited by C K Dexter Haven on 03-09-2001 at 09:00 AM] ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2001, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-ed-in-the-wsj/57234/5 "2001-03-10T16:52:22Z")
Hate to say this, but _except for_ the political-economic stuff (which is, granted, most of it), the WSJ is actually a pretty nead paper. Check out their front page; there’s always one story that’s included purely because it’s cool.