The Wall Street Journal has taken a lot of heat lately for pumping up the news, spinning headline-grabbing stories out of the barest of threads. One of the most egregious examples came last week when it breathlessly reported about how farmers are threatened by new derivatives regulations -- but couldn't find a farmer who was affected.

Last weekend, the lead story in Personal Finance was "Congress Overhauls Your Portfolio." This alarming headline was followed by a blurb sure to attract the attention of those who may already be wary of the Obama administration's regulatory efforts:

Overlooked amid the thousands of pages that comprise the Dodd-Frank bill are major changes affecting mutual funds, retirement plans, single-stock investments and other holdings.

So what are these "major changes"? Do they really justify these scary alarums? Let's take a look inside...

First, the article addresses mutual funds: "Though mutual funds are barely mentioned in the Dodd-Frank bill, the legislation could affect everything from funds' bond and derivatives holdings to how these products are advertised to investors." Unfortunately, the only specifics the article can find to support this premise are some pricing uncertainty for bonds issued by troubled financial institutions seized by the FDIC, and a study of mutual fund advertising that might someday result in some changes to how funds tout their performance.

Next come retirement plans. What does the article find? Well, it seems that the bill asks regulators to study whether stable value wrap contracts should be subject to the new rules governing derivatives. If so, that might raise the costs of stable value funds and maybe make them harder to find. If, that is, the regulators decide that way. And they have 15 months to make up their minds.

Hedge funds? Well, now they have to register with the SEC if they have $150 million in assets. That will raise some costs for smaller funds. It might make it harder for new funds to get started. And investors can no longer count the value of their primary residence toward the $1 million in net worth that makes them "accredited investors" able to invest in these funds.

Then the Journal tackles individual stocks. What do they find? A few nods toward shareholder activism, which even the author concedes are unlikely to have any practical impact, particularly on small investors.

Derivatives? "The bill should help cut risks in funds holding derivatives." That sounds pretty good to me. But to pay for this benefit, there may be some "incremental drag" on the performance of funds and ETFs using these instruments.

For brokerage accounts, the bill gives the SEC the authority to impose the same fiduciary standard on brokers as they do on financial advisors. This is one area where the bill could potentially have a major impact on your portfolio. But it doesn't...yet. First the SEC has to study the issue and report to Congress.

And the article finds a few other provisions that could affect individual investors. The SEC has the right to prohibit mandatory arbitration in brokerage disputes. (But again, the bill itself doesn't do that.) It raises the amount of FDIC deposit insurance. It makes it harder to issue phony mortgages. And it establishes new agencies to regulate consumer financial fraud and the insurance industry.

That's it? That's all the Journal could come up with? That's what they mean by "Congress overhauls your portfolio"?

Give us a break, Rupert.

It does makes you wonder, though. Could the new Murdoch-era Journal have a broader agenda? Are the political views of its editorial page starting to affect the objectivity of its news coverage? Is the fabled wall between the Journal's opinions and news beginning to crumble?

That could be the biggest news of all in this article.