MS NOW Morning Joe co-host Joe Scarborough continued to describe himself as a "conservative." And if there was a newspaper that could rightly be described as the philosophical home of mainstream conservatism, it's the Wall Street Journal. So you would expect "conservative" Scarborough to be well-aligned with its editorial page.  But no! On Tuesday's Morning Joe, Scarborough threw a curveball: You look at the Wall Street Journal's editorial page. I bring this up because this is a Murdoch-owned company. The editorial page, we don't agree. I don't agree with what they say a lot of the time. But man, when it comes to holding Donald Trump to constitutional norms and political norms, they've been right there. So, Scarborough generally disagreed with the WSJ editorial page -- except when it's criticizing Trump! Yes, Joe wouldn't want to offend his largely liberal audience by looking too favorably on a bunch of ... capitalists! Scarborough didn't specify the issues on which he disagreed with the WSJ. The paper's editorial position had traditionally been more immigration-friendly than the majority of conservatives, so you'd think that would appeal to Scarborough.  It's time for Scarborough to give up the charade of pretending to still be a conservative. Admit it, Joe: you've gone over to the dark side! Scarborough's carefully calibrated praise of the WSJ's opinion page came in the context of a discussion of the Washington Post's recent staff reductions. Quoting Ben Smith's column at Semafor, Scarborough said that WaPo, by moving away from its hardline liberalism, had "fired its audience without acquiring a new one."     In contrast, said Scarborough, the WSJ had done things the right way: Every single day it seems there is a new story. And these are Pulitzer-worthy stories. There is a new story detailing how the Trump family is getting richer from dealings with oligarchs, getting richer from dealings with other countries. And the result had been, according to Scarborough, that whereas Wash Post has become "a shell of a once great institution," the WSJ had increased subscriptions by 10-15 percent. Go unwoke, go broke, was that Joe's claim?  The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: MS NOW's Morning Joe 2/10/26 6:35 am ET MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Ben Smith, your latest piece for Semafor is titled, How Trump's Politics Returned to Earth.  . . . [Reading from Smith's Semafor piece] Trump's other early source of power last year was a cowed media. The Washington Post, with its rapid pivot toward a Trump-curious editorial posture, seemed to be a case in point. However, the Post is a cautionary tale for two reasons. First, the publication appears to have fired its audience without acquiring a new one. And second, while owner Jeff Bezos may have protected his space company from presidential retaliation, there is no sign the Post won any benefits from the president or his movement.  . . .  JOE SCARBOROUGH: John Lemire, I want you to take the next question to Ben, but the Washington Post was brought up by Ben, and he's so right. They fired their audience. They didn't acquire a new one. They've still done some good investigative reporting, but at times they've also been far too, well, let's just say they've tipped their hand far too many times, trying not to upset Donald Trump.  But let's look at a case study of what does work in the Trump era. And we brought it up the other day, the Wall Street Journal, what Emma Tucker has done. Every single day it seems there is a new story. And these are Pulitzer-worthy stories. There is a new story detailing how the Trump family is getting richer from dealings with oligarchs, getting richer from dealings with other countries. You could go down the line. But the Wall Street Journal, day in and day out, they're doing that kind of reporting. It's kind of like what Fahrenthold [a Washington Post investigative reporter] did in the 2016 campaign, following the money.  You look at the Wall Street Journal's editorial page. Also, again, I bring this up because this is a Murdoch-owned company. The editorial page. You know, we don't agree. I don't agree with what they say a lot of the time. But, man, when it comes to holding Donald Trump to constitutional norms and political norms, they've been right there.  And what's happened? Their business is going up. I mean, I think the number of subscriptions have gone up at least 10%, 15% since Tucker became the editor. There's a right way to do it, and there's a wrong way to do it.  And if you do it the way the Washington Post does it, you end up with a shell of a once-great institution.