by Oui
Wed Dec 27th, 2017 at 11:25:20 AM EST
From the moment Rupert Murdoch bought the Wall Street Journal in 2007, I've have been quite critical of the articles written by its staff.
The topics of real concern: Israel and Saudi Arabia cooperation with Islamic extremists fighting with the opposition in Syria, the Ghouta gas attack of August 2013, Saudi and Israel sharing intelligence on Sinai terrorists.
Furthermore any credence given to Murdoch's star fiction writer Louise Mensh, a former British MP, with obvious inputs from the British and US intelligence communities on Trump and Russia.
A nice work of journalism on the internal battle at WSJ published in Vanity Fair...
A series of virulent anti-Mueller editorials has reporters worried about their paper's credibility.
More below the fold ...
"A Different Level of Crazy": Is Civil War Breaking Out in the Wall Street Journal over the Editorial Board's Coverage of Mueller?
In recent days, of course, the opinion coverage has produced controversial commentary on Robert Mueller's Trump-Russia investigation, often flying in the face of the Journal's own news reporting. On October 23, political scientist Peter Berkowitz proclaimed that the probe into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign "threaten[s] the rule of law." Days later, an October 29 piece by two attorneys from the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations called on President Donald Trump to "immediately [issue] a blanket presidential pardon to anyone involved in supposed collusion." Meanwhile, Journal editorial board member Kimberley Strassel filed an October 26 column raining opprobrium on Fusion GPS, the intelligence outfit that commissioned former British spook Christopher Steele to compile the now infamous Trump-Russia dossier. Most recently, there was an editorial that acknowledged the indictments of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and his business partner Richard Gates for non-campaign-related alleged money laundering. The editorial's main thrust, however, seemed to be to excoriate Democrats for "their role in financing Fusion." The editorial referred to Fusion as "sleazy operators"; it didn't mention that the guys who run Fusion were previously Wall Street Journal reporters. Former high-ranking Journal editor Bill Grueskin spoke for many when he tweeted, "WSJ edit page has gone full bats--t."
...
The discrepancy can be awkward. Recently, national security reporter Shane Harris tweeted a link to that October 26 editorial, which was titled, "Democrats, Russians and the FBI; Did the bureau use disinformation to trigger its Trump probe?" Along with the link, Harris wrote, "US intel agencies developed their own reporting on Trump/Russia contacts. Some back to 2015." And in a subsequent tweet: "Dossier didn't exist when FBI investigation began. Fmr snr intel official also told me it played zero role in conclusion of Russian meddling." A reader asked, "then why is your editorial board putting out garbage editorials saying the opposite?" "I have no role in what the editorial board chooses to write," Harris replied. Indeed, while the Journal didn't have a comment for this article, a spokeswoman pointed me to a tweet yesterday from @WSJopinion reinforcing its independence from the newsroom. Editorial page editor Paul Gigot also declined to comment.
Many, many diaries on topic in recent months ...
Further reading ...
○ Reasons Why Dems Have Been Fucking Stupid on the Steele Dossier, a Long Essay | Emptywheel |
