Posted on 08/24/2017 7:50:51 AM PDT by yoe
The editor-in-chief told reporters their coverage was packaged in “selective criticism,” according to emails obtained by The New York Times.
The editor-in-chief of the Wall Street Journal reportedly berated reporters at the newspaper in a late-night email Wednesday over their coverage of President Donald Trump, according to internal emails obtained by The New York Times
The email exchange between Gerard Baker and reporters concerned a story draft on Trump’s explosive campaign-style rally in Phoenix on Tuesday, when the president attacked the media and members of Congress, and threatened to shut down the government to press efforts to build his Mexico border wall.
The reporters’ take on Trump’s rally was apparently too opinionated for Baker.
“Sorry. This is commentary dressed up as news reporting,” Baker said in an email sent at midnight, according to the Times.
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
If this story is true, it tells me that the WSJ is starting to see problems with its bottom line. I’m probably not the only one who has stopped reading it because of the consistent anti-Trump globalism that fills its pages.
“stopped reading it because of the consistent anti-Trump globalism that fills its pages.”
People are becoming more aware day-by-day of anti-Trump globalism thanks to...Trump.
That email would be appropriate if sent to MOST news outlets - maybe he could forward it to the NY TImes. Sheesh, and the TImes thinks this is news???
Yup, kissed off the WSJ subscription last year. I can get biased reporting anywhere.
They offered it 2 dollars for 2 months trial. I kept if for a week or two and I still didn’t see anything there to make me want to go back to being a two newspaper a day fan for many years, nope not yet but keep trying wsj. Btw get rid of Peggy Noonan. I’m Sick of that bag insulting me every week.
In the famous Harvard Annenberg Study of news coverage of the President, the WSJ’s coverage of the first 100 days was 70% negative. Not as horrendous as CNN and NBC at 93% and the NYT at 87%, but certainly not as balanced as FOX at 52% negative. There were no news outlets that gave him a positive majority in their coverage. Contrast to the slobbering adoration Obama received.
Then they trumpet the fact that the President’s poll numbers are down. What a surprise.
Absolutely spot on. The news in the Wall Street Journal has been indistinguishable from the NYTimes, from Gerald Seib on down. It is why I canceled my subscription and have refused to renew it. I occasionally check the front page and it is still replete with opinion surrounded by news bites, with the headlines clearly the worst.
Baker was right to call out this increasingly blatant effort to sway public opinion views subterfuge in the news. Unless and until this changes at the WSJ I will never go back to my decades-long subscription.
Keep an eye on this. If Gerard Baker is suddenly given his walking papers, or if he’s re-assigned from being an Editor, we’ll know for sure that this was a gimmick to help WSJ’s bottom line.
I used to LOVE reading the WSJ back in the day, but now it’s just another fish wrap like the rest of them.
Yep, their subscriptions and hits on their internet site must really be down.
Last year their so called polls had Trump losing in big ways. Our never Trumpsters were able to post new negative WSJ articles and editorials for the whole election.
The WSJ can just roll over and disappear as another entity that committed suicide with its Never Trump bs.
You’re right. It boils down to the bottom line.
I used to subscribe to both the NYT and the WSJ. (granted it was at a discounted rate)
I dropped the Times because of its bias but kept the WSJ. Later I dropped both of them. Now there is no television and I’ve turned the radio off. The media are committing slow suicide.
The media is the only way swamp icons can fight back at a ballot box elected president. Everyone in Washington was already spending next year's paychecks they thought had Hilary 's signature on them.
I am a 30+ year subscriber to WSJ.
The editorial page has been consistently middle of the road and fact based. They do show a liberal bias on LBGT issues and immigration; otherwise their is little on their editorial pages that Conservatives can object too.
There news coverage is a different matter. In the last year or so the news coverage has slipped from being more or less objective and middle of the road; to having a strong left wing bias. It has gotten steadily worse in the last several months to the point where it is not yet as bad as NYT,CNN or WP but it is certainly as bad as the networks.
I believe it has always been difficult basing a balanced news reporting in such a over the top biased population like New York City but with the influence of the Murdoch children I think the WSJ days are numbered.
The bias which infects their news reporting will eventually infect their editorial pages and at that point there will not be a sliver of difference between them and NYT and WP.
President Trump can’t even view the total eclipse without criticism
Put me in the column of WSJ drop outs. After 30 plus years of faithful readership I left the fold after observing last years election coverage. It is not missed.
Well while the Editorial Page might be okay, I do find some objections to it, the news coverage and the columnists I do object to. Their Bias against Trump is more than I want to deal with. I have thought several times in the last year or so of canceling, but I do want the financial news.
For me it was five years ago or so when one of their writers
Thomas Frank who has a Ph.D in history from the University of Chicago said lots of nice thinks about Ayers and Dorhn.
“They offered it 2 dollars for 2 months trial.”
wow! I’d like to get that offer! The newsprint is worth more than that, and it’s very useful as packing material and changing the oil in my lawn tractor.
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.