It seems as though no one can resist the temptation of the Britney Spears-bashing bandwagon: not even the most-revered financial newspaper in the world. Attacks from the tabloids and the likes of Perez Hilton have been relentless for years, but The Wall Street Journal's review (subscription required) of her new album is fairly scathing. Here are some of the high (low?) points:

A phalanx of producers and backing vocalists exert more of an influence on a disc that's not quite a mess but only occasionally rises above a muddle... as a vocalist, Ms. Spears sounds weary, snide and at times disconnected. On some songs, her voice seems grafted to the material as if an afterthought... At the bottom register, her voice is a throaty bleat... With "Blackout," Ms. Spears fails to deliver a recording that will re-establish her as a dominant pop star rather than a 25-year-old woman who seems bent on self-destruction...

The Journal doesn't seem to have anything positive to say about Spears, and the good things it does say about the album refer mainly to the production and background vocalists.

But all of this raises an interesting question: why is The Wall Street Journal reviewing a Britney Spears album anyway? Is that really her demographic? With the exception of Alan Greenspan, how man Journal readers will even consider buying her new album?

But then again, the financial press has a well-deserved reputation for calling stock sells precisely at their bottoms. So perhaps Britney's career is ready to rebound.