The Cesspool That Is the WSJ Op-Ed Section

[LFC]

The WSJ's op-ed section was a bit of a frothy right-wing place even before Rupert Murdoch bought the paper. Now it's just nuts as are all Murdoch properties. So to hear that the journalists are dismayed that they printed a piece by Trump, a king of frothiness, is kind of amusing. Seriously? You don't know what kind of organization you work for? It'd be like Chris Wallace expressing disbelief that Carlson and Hannity said something untrue and stupid. It's the outlet's business model for crisakes.

Reporters at The Wall Street Journal feel badly let down by the paper’s opinion editors who decided to publish an unhinged and unchecked rant about baseless election conspiracy theories from none other than Donald Trump. In an absurd letter published by the Journal’s Opinion section on Wednesday, Trump falsely declared that the 2020 election was “rigged” and provided a list of shonky statistics in a failed attempt to prove his point. The newsroom, which is separate to the opinion section, has, justifiably, not responded well to their newspaper publishing a screed of provably false information. Speaking to CNN’s Brian Stelter, one unnamed reporter said: “I think it’s very disappointing that our Opinion section continues to publish misinformation that our news side works so hard to debunk... They should hold themselves to the same standards we do!” The Journal has not responded to criticism from inside or outside its newsroom.

[goldenvalley]

I've been a subscriber to WSJ for about a year now. Never ever read the editorial page...you might as well read Dreher's stuff in TAC because it's at least entertaining. The comments after the news articles though...they are just like what you see in TAC. It's stunning.

[LFC]

The WSJ's Editorial Board didn't like getting called on publishing Trump's shit. The response is pure, pathetic, partisan hackery in its own right. From TPM:

Well Excuuuuse Me!

The Wall Street Journal editorial board yesterday put out a prickly defense of its decision to publish Trump’s rambling letter to the editor in which he regurgitated his usual lies about voter fraud in the 2020 election — a screed identical to any of the hundreds of emails from his Save America PAC, except it was published in a reputable news outlet wholesale, without a single factcheck.

• “The progressive parsons of the press are aflutter” over the letter, the editorial board sneers in their column. They write further down that “the media clerics” and “their attempts to censor” Trump “have done nothing to diminish his popularity.”
• The board goes on to fact-check Trump’s lies in the letter that they didn’t fact-check beforehand because “it’s difficult to respond to everything.”
• They also argue that since Trump lies all the time anyway, “we hardly did him a special favor by letting him respond to our editorial.”
• Trump’s op-ed had gone after a WSJ editorial about an open seat on Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court. It included such high-minded prose as: “Well actually, the election was rigged, which you, unfortunately, still haven’t figured out.”

Short Bullet Point #2: "Waaah. Fact check is hard!"

Paywall blocks most of the original but here's the opener. They pull a full blown Chuck Todd (bold mine) in the first paragraph.

The progressive parsons of the press are aflutter that we published a letter to the editor Thursday from former President Trump, objecting to our editorial pointing out that he lost Pennsylvania last year by 80,555 votes. We trust our readers to make up their own minds about his statement. And we think it’s news when an ex-President who may run in 2024 wrote what he did, even if (or perhaps especially if) his claims are bananas.

Sooooo ... we know he lies all so it's OK? I have no idea how they think constantly lying justifies printing an op-ed without fact checking or comment.

BTW here's the opener to WSJ op-ed about Pennsylvania's Supreme Court referred to in the last bullet point:

After Pennsylvania’s 2020 election mess, the state Supreme Court needs an injection of judicial restraint, and Judge Kevin Brobson wants to deliver the first dose. The Nov. 2 ballot includes a partisan election for an open seat on the high court. Judge Brobson, who sits on an appeals bench a step lower, is the GOP nominee. His website says he’ll defend “the law as it is written.”

Uuuuuhhhhh, what mess? The mess that an army of Republican liars desperately tried to create with an endless stream of lies, half-truths, and outright whines about nothing?

[goldenvalley]

Uuuuuhhhhh, what mess? The mess that an army of Republican liars desperately tried to create with an endless stream of lies, half-truths, and outright whines about nothing?

Yeah that mess.  Reminds me of the accused murderer of his own mother and father throwing himself on the mercy of the court because he's an orphan.