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 ...
The Editorials are not conservative, they are establishmentarian.
Apparently, a lot of today's "journalists" didn't get the memo. Every article I read, reads like a blog post or an editorial.
My old journalism teacher would have had a stroke.
I have cancelled my subscription to WSJ after reading the daily,continued anti-Trump stance from the editors, staff and reporters.
But they think it is just the opposite. They think their news stories are totally objective. They aren’t.
Better, if every Trump voter cancelled their WSJ subscription!
How many Clintoon voters can even read the WSJ?
We subscribe. Yes, the reporting has drifted left. But it is still a better news source than other national newspapers, as far as I know. I feel I am much better informed than if I subscribed to the major paper near me (LA Times).
I do hope they improve and get rid of loaded words in articles. There is enough of that elsewhere.
“the list of WSJ phony propagandists on the John Podesta email and dinner parties “
I have heard of this list.
Could you post the list ?
A link to the list?
WSJ “newsroom” side has been very liberal for years. Only the OpEd side gave the impression that the paper had any “conservative” aspect.
You know your propaganda is working when the people being propagandized don't even know it.
Nine-tenths of what I’m reading from the MSM consists of editorials masquerading as hard news.
Loaded with negative descriptive adjectives and adverbs. No evidence of any investigative techniques, balanced skepticism, or attempt to allow readers to make up their own minds.
No apparent source, named or unnamed; when carefully parsed by a discerning reader, it becomes apparent that the only “source” is the slobbering, enraged reporter himself, backed up in an echo-chamber by his fellow “reporters.”
In short, they have utterly abandoned any pretense of objectivity, and have made it clear they do NOT serve their readers; in fact, it is clear they have nought but disdain for their readers, whom they consider sub-intelligent morons incapable of rational thought.
Their reportage is nothing more than “I’ve got access to the government, and you don’t. Here’s what I think; you morons WILL think what I TELL you to think.”
Neutral is “absurd?”
How about neutral is how reporting should be.
I don’t need no stinking opinion figure, to instruct me how to view events and personalities.
I am better informed by reading the WSJ than if I read the local paper of watched the tv news, like my sheeple friends.
I also Freep. That exposes me to many different news sources and interesting people. Some of whom make false assumptions and unflattering comments.
God bless.
How do you know you are not just misinformed?
I’m well informed, thank you, but I’m sure I could always improve on that. Do you have a good newspaper that you recommend? What news sources are sufficient, in your opinion, to make one well-informed? By the way, don’t you think a smart grown-up can filter and assess as they read, thus making even a less-than-perfect source somewhat informative? I’d like the benefit of the doubt, that I am a critical reader.
The fact is propaganda is very effective both good and bad. Unfortunately we usually don't know until years later whether what we accepted as true, really is. In many cases we will never know.
In the end we will accept some version that we can live with.
A quote from Chuck Missler I often remember is, "The greatest barrier to the truth is to believe we already have it."
Case in point, the Flynn story, most here accept that Flynn lied and had to be punished. I contend that it is a B$ cover story, maybe we will know for a fact someday, maybe not, but some version will be accepted and recorded when absolutely no evidence exists that any of it is true.
I hope you caught the presser today, Trump called out the WSJ today for publishing a lie on their front page. Put them in the same class as the failing NYT.
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.