Wall Street Journal staffers accuse editor of suppressing story

[laserhaas]

Source: Politico Europe

Wall Street Journal staff members circulated an anonymously written email on Thursday accusing “a senior editor” — which some later identified as editor-in-chief Gerry Baker — of suppressing a story and accompanying graphic because they were too liberal.

The email urged staffers to begin tweeting the graphics-heavy story at noon, which many did. The story and graphics detailed the country’s recovery from the 2008 financial crisis but also included information on how economic inequality had increased.

Read more: https://www.politico.eu/blogs/on-media/2018/03/wall-street-journal-staffers-accuse-editor-of-suppressing-story/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

---

Link to tweet

.

[laserhaas]

1. As noted by the Tweet, I've known WSJ to bury stories

For ...Y e a r s

[Bengus81]

2. Hell with Murdoch owning the paper I'm surprised they don't kill off anything

that would give der Fuehrer bad press and be positive toward Dems and Obama.

[GetRidOfThem]

4. not that simple...

...I think they broke the story of Cohen's payoff to Stormy. And the shell companies in Delaware he used to arrange for the payments...

[underpants]

3. like the blurring of the line between W and Obama now they are clouding the Obama recovery

I heard a moron (Limbaugh) say just yesterday that GDP growth in Trump's first year was 2.3% while Obama's first year was a negative 2.8% - he explained that this was a "5.1% swing".

[Bengus81]

5. While that's the correct number for 2009 look at what the HELL Obama walked into...

Stock market in shambles,economy trashed,bank failures galore,home re-po's by the millions and bail out payments to Corporations. But Obama was suppose to turn around what was nearly the Second Great depression in just a few months according to idiots like Pillboy and his knuckle dragger listeners. In 2010 the GDP was 2.5%--a huge turnaround,wonder how much praise Limbaugh heaped on him for that huge turn around??

So shit gibbon Trump ended up 2017 with 2.3%? Pretty bad seeing how strong the economy was in Jan 2017.

[Nitram]

6. Excellent! A rebellion of WSJ staff against censorship and being forced to be a

conservative mouthpiece. Sounds a little like an American Spring!

[FakeNoose]

7. Here's a link to the unrolled thread (Thread Reader)

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/979388337755774976.html

The author's charts and graphics are all preserved in this unrolled thread. It's quiet interesting and alarming. I don't see a bit of liberal politics in this, just facts and data about the current banking trends.

[still_one]

11. and that is what the Journal had been noted for in regard to its news stories, until Murdoch took

over and brought in his cronies

[scipan]

15. Very interesting!

love the graphs.

[Chrysanthemum]

16. But as Stephen Colbert says...

Facts have a well-known liberal bias.

[Farmer-Rick]

8. Corporate censorship, it's everywhere

Not surprising in a Murdoch rag.

[still_one]

9. Murdoch has been placing political idealogues in key positions at the WSJ ever since he bought the

paper, and Gerry Baker, a British citizen, was one of those people that moved up quite quickly.

While the journals editorial pages were also slanted to the right, since Murdoch's control of the WSJ, it has become much worse.

It was just a few months ago when the WSJ was demanding Mueller to resign, and effectively went to war against the FBI, and I don't recall the Journal taking such extreme positions as this before.

[malthaussen]

10. Is this news?

Papers have been partisan since they were turned out by hand on manual printing presses. That's the whole idea. And it's why corporate ownership of dozens or even hundreds of news outlets is a Bad Idea.

-- Mal

[Igel]

12. So what?

All the decisions are to be made by reporters? The editors are just there to correct their bad grammar and decide how, exactly, to lay the stories out using some software that makes it a lot easier than it used to be?

Or do editors exert editorial control and the reporters think the paper's owned, controlled, and all decisions should be made by the only Truly Important People, the reporters?

Fire them. They're too full of themselves to be low-level employees, and if they get promoted they're be even more full of themselves. If they're that important, surely everybody will throw money at them just because they're so awesome.

In fact, they can use gofundme to set up another newspaper. Or even better, a blog that can grow to be a primarily internet source to reach just "we the people," maybe 10% of the local population.

[laserhaas]

13. Puhhlleeaassee

Editor's, General Counsels and owners call the shots