Posted on 02/14/2017 6:22:57 AM PST by RoosterRedux
Wall Street Journal editor in chief Gerard Baker told his reporters Monday the paper would not abandon objectivity in its coverage of President Donald Trump, and directed them to find work somewhere else if they want to adopt a more oppositional tone.
“It’s a little irritating when I read that we have been soft on Donald Trump,” he told his reporters and editors, a source at the newsroom meeting told The New York Times. Baker held the meeting ostensibly to have a casual conversation on the editorial direction of the paper, but it was held on the heels of reports the newsroom is in turmoil over the Trump coverage.
The Trump coverage is “neutral to the point of being absurd,” one source inside the newsroom recently told Politico. Criticism peaked when Baker sent a memo to staff instructing reporters and editors to tone down the use of “loaded” language in coverage of Trump’s immigration ban.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
:: Wall Street Journal editor in chief Gerard Baker ::
Yet, Baker cannot see beyond the difference of objective and subject journalism.
As Bugs Bunny once said...”what a maroon!”
When reporters have to be told what words to use in their articles ....
Meh.
WSJ reporting is as Leftist as any in the MSM. They do fool people with slightly more conservative editorials, but their reporting could be from the NYT.
The leopard isn’t going to change his spots.
Ping
This E-I-C is aware of the fact that the WSJ lost its objectivity concerning Trump long ago?
The dirty little secret is that most reporters are hired for big newspapers based on their known bias toward the Left. If it was even remotely suspected that they might favor conservatives they would never get the job in the first place.
The Trump coverage is “neutral to the point of being absurd,”
Gee, I have noticed a distinct Leftist tilt by the WSJ recently. Those reporters must be really upset that this guy, ostensibly, wants to be fair and balanced. I had decided that the WSJ just wanted to be accepted by and become another one of the Leftist media......I may have to revisit that if they do, in fact, revert to a more balanced approach.
Sanity rules. May I say here that the world has become so twisted, the media thinks they have the right to provide biased coverage in order to bring down Trump. Bind the hands of such people,Lord, bind their hands and stop their plots.
..and he is irritated at the way others are perceiving him?
Tons of abject objectivity with this one !!
The first rule of a newspaper is to remain in business and this editor is guilty of understanding that journalists are on a different planet than average Newsreaders in America:
he understands the trends in place I think in 10 years the major dailies will not exist in their current form.
They will exist in name but they’ll be like AOL, Yahoo, Sears or Blockbuster.
“neutral to the point of being absurd,” one source inside the newsroom recently told Politico”
How would neutrality cross over into absurdity when we are talking about a “news” story?
It is indeed a Brave New World these journalists dwell in.
I subscribed to the WSJ for several years (about a decade ago). It kept its opinions on the Editorial page.
The editorial/opinion pages were two facing pages. One third of one page provided the opinions of the paper’s editors. They were harshly critical of President Clinton at the time. That was it for the entire newspaper.
Most newspapers are liberal and they make their opinions known in any article that involves any politics or ideology. If you want an opinion-free zone, you might get it in sports, business, local news, and weather. The paper’s opinion are often in the headline to make sure everyone “gets it.” Basically, most papers are left-wing rags. They deserve all the scorn that is heaped upon them.
The WSJ was, and may still be, a classy professional newspaper. Perhaps the same can be said of Investors’ Business Daily - at least I like some of their work posted here. If I were to subscribe (either digitally or newspaper), I would probably subscribe to one of these two.
and so, the news reporting business is managed...as if we didn’t know!
What a load of BS from a Murdoch cheap labor rag .
Explain the list of WSJ phony propagandists on the John Podesta email and dinner parties from the WSJ.
Wiki leaks unmasked the WSJ as another Let wing tag.
There has been for a long time a huge difference between the WSJ’s editorials and it’s “news” reporting.
It’s obvious the WSJ editor got his words mixed up. He should have said “those unsatisfied with President Trump coverage should cancel their subscriptions to the bird cage liner, never ever read another copy of it, and let the publication out to pasture. Advertisers should be alerted the newsrag is attempting to shed readers (as well as employees), so advertising costs should be lower than they are now paying.
By not having them tell them to tone down their rah rah for Trump, it proves the bias.
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.