Posted on 01/31/2017 2:42:57 PM PST by deplorableindc
Wall Street Journal Editor in-Chief Gerard Baker upset his newsroom Monday night with a directive to tone down “loaded” language in reporting on Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration.
Baker asked his reporters to stop identifying the seven countries from which immigration is temporarily banned as “majority Muslim,” because the term is “very loaded.” And he suggested identifying them as states designated by the government as terror threats instead.
...
The directive caused a “ruckus” in the newsroom according to a WSJ source who talked with Politico, as some took issue with what they believe to be soft coverage of the Trump administration.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
I guess it’s true that Wall Street is in the pocket of the ‘Rats....
news portion has always been left of center. Editorial has been conservative/libertarian.
If the WSJ wants to survive as a publication in the long term, they’d do well to fire every one of those ‘journalists’ that raised a fuss.
The industry of journalism needs to figure out, real quick, how to clean itself up and start doing its actual job, rather than playing political propagandist for the destructionists, or it will be cleaned up, savagely, by others.
The entire paper is more liberal than the NYT and it goes w/o saying that Murdoch despises Trump. Jeb was his horse who never got out of the starting gate.
Simple, Mr. Editor, just tell them if they are unhappy with that directive, they need to find work elsewhere. There are a large number of journalists looking for jobs these days. Suggest they head off to the Wash Post who had a team of writers paid to scour anything looking for dirt on Trump and their help could be well received.
I would imagine the street still remembers the horrendous drop in value immediately following 9-11
Brett Stevens
I don’t see the NY times advocating for tax relief, school choice, regulatory reform on its op ed pages. Yes op ed is libertarian on the border and some other issues. But overall the paper is not more liberal than NY times.
The WSJ has been drifting Leftward for a long time. I haven’t read a really Conservative article in a while.
[[And he suggested identifying them as states designated by the government as terror threats instead.]]
Which just happen to be majority muslim- Don’t be a nancy boy editor- we are banning muslisms from dangerous islamic nations
W as
S ane
J ournalism
Not any longer...
Maybe this editor sees the writing on the wall. Trump can bypass the media any time he wants; especially if that media source is hostile to him and his Administration. At which point these snowflake journalists will have to pick up the pieces of any story involving the White House from the floor of the MST (Main Stream Tabloids) (they have given up on being Media news).
The MST are doing their level best to become irrelevant. Some of us believe they already are. I for one don’t trust anything they say any longer.
But Peggy... [ducking disgusting flying objects]
and that’s why I canceled my subscription after many, many years. I got very tired of paying for the NYTimes by proxy.
I don’t get the reference........
Noonan, not a favorite here.
President Obama puts six month ban on Iraqi refugees in 2011 and media…. crickets.
President Trump puts 120 day suspension on Syrian refugees 2017… media explodes.
Obama selects 7 countries for enhanced visa security policy and media… crickets.
Trump uses Obama law, same Obama DHS policy, and same 7 countries; for a 90-day visa suspension and media explodes.
There was nothing about religion nor race in Trump’s ExO)
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/01/30/why-restrict-visas-from-yemen-somalia-sudan-syria-iraq-iran-and-libya/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.