Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
WSJ Pushes Back Against its Own Staff
For the past year, we have reluctantly continued to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, even as we’ve watched its news section become increasingly progressive in its views. But we’ve always liked the Opinion page and appreciate the excellent journalism of Bill McGurn, Holman Jenkins, Dan Henninger, and especially Kimberley Strassel. I just learned, however, that 280 of the WSJ news staffers criticized the Opinion editors for not reflecting a “woke” mentality, and their letter was also “leaked.” The leaked letter is in the form of a tweet in this article, and difficult to read in this form, but you are welcome to try. Here is part of the editors’ response:
It was probably inevitable that the wave of progressive cancel culture would arrive at the Journal, as it has at nearly every other cultural, business, academic and journalistic institution. But we are not the New York Times. Most Journal reporters attempt to cover the news fairly and down the middle, and our opinion pages offer an alternative to the uniform progressive views that dominate nearly all of today’s media. [italics mine]
I haven’t actually analyzed the news sections of the WSJ to determine if most of their journalists try to cover the news fairly, because the exceptions are so glaring. But I was especially impressed with other things the Opinion editors said:
In the spirit of collegiality, we won’t respond in kind to the letter signers. Their anxieties aren’t our responsibility in any case. The signers report to the News editors or other parts of the business, and the News and Opinion departments operate with separate staffs and editors. [italics mine]
This is a low-key yet powerful statement. The editors essentially say they’re not going to be as unprofessional as their colleagues were. And the statement that they’re not going to worry about the “anxieties” of the staffers reinforces the point that it’s not their job to do so. In other words, we are not going to cave in to your “feelings.”
I am very pleased to see the editors push back at the “recommendations” of the leaked letter, and hope that the WSJ Opinion page will continue to reflect conservative ideas.
They’re the only large newspaper with the integrity to do it.
Published in Journalism
I’m looking for the leaders of the letter campaign to be fired for attempting to undermine company management policies. Free speech in an employment setting does not include the right to bully your fellow employees or company management.
As @cliffordbrown noted above (comment #22), management on the news side seems to be supporting the rebellious, bullying employees of the news side, so I don’t think the petulant children will learn anything. The slap from the Editorial Board is a rebuke, but one that won’t really teach the news side employees anything, so I expect the news side to get worse.
Sadly, their college and early adulthood experiences taught them the opposite.
So at least fire the editors on the news side? Works for me!
Writing Staff:
“Our Opinion Writer’s aren’t woke enough!”
Opinion Editors:
I’m in my late mid 40s, and I resemble this message.
At least yours is still developing; mine might be disappearing!
Hey, I said it was not fully developed. I didn’t say anything about continuing to develop it. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves here.
@maguffin, you regularly crack me up–and put me in my place!
Personally, I think they should all be canned and new reporters recruited from Townhall, ZeroHedge and maybe even one or two from Ace of Spades.
I have subscribed to the Journal and other Dow Jones publications (package deal; Barron’s, Market Watch are included) for years. My main attraction, however, has been the WSJ opinion page.
While Market Watch and Barron’s stick to business, the reporting section of the WSJ has become increasingly woke.
Without the opinion page, I’d have cancelled long ago.
One other note, I suspect that the average age of the WSJ reporters are probably much younger than the opinion writers. And it shows not only in the leaked memo, but the opinion page response, which includes courtesy.
If you view everything through the lense of race and identity then, by definition, you cannot “be versed in, and a strong advocate for”, standards and ethics related to “fairness and integrity”.
This sentence doesn’t say “we are looking for someone to view all our editorial decisions through a lens of race and identity.” It says “we are looking for an editor who will oversee editorials about race and identity.” Those are two very different things.
The words themselves are compatible with the Wall Street Journal’s conservative editorial outlook. Even the Journal should be commissioning editorials about race and identity right now, because to do otherwise is journalistic malfeasance in this atmosphere. So the hiring of an editor to “focus on matters of race and identity” is not necessarily a signal that the Journal is drifting. We won’t know that until we see the content of the editorials green-lit by the new editor.
Been a reader of the WSJ for years and have watched, over the past few, as the news sections has drifted into one big opinion section. That’s what the news section letter is really about. It is trying to fully usurp the role of opinion at the paper.
If you read the news section reporting on what is going on in Portland it is about federal government aggression. In yesterday’s story you have to read almost to the end until finding a buried reference to “riots” without any context or mention of how long this situation has gone on and then a paragraph later a passing reference to “small” fires being set.
Today’s front page has at top a large photo labeled:
The text underneath merely references the Hagia Sophia “had been a museum for the past 86 years“. No reference to its former role as a church or its place in Christianity. One would think it has been converted from a mosque to a museum 86 years ago. Can you imagine the label and text if the opposite had occurred?
The inside story on page A6 is headlined “Hagia Sophia, Once Again a Mosque“. It’s not until the 3rd paragraph that there is a reference that “it was once the seat of the Orthodox patriarch of Constantinople” but provides no further explanation. It’s not until the 10th paragraph that the dreaded word “Christianity” is allowed to appear and in the closing paragraphs some explanation for Christian discontent with the decision.
As an extra added bonus, today’s Review section contains “What Should Jesus Look Like?” an attempt to revive the question of the proper skin tone for Jesus in this time of BLM. The 21 paragraph article discussing skin tone does not contain the words “Jew” or “Jewish” though it does quote a scholar that Jesus is depicted in an early painting “bearded as a Palestinian might have been“.
I read this as an editor role in the newsroom as it specifically references “help guide our newsroom staff”.
Yeah – you’re right. I conflated the two in my head. That’s what happens when I write while listening to James discuss UFOs on the latest Ricochet podcast.
I think even for a newsroom position, it’s too soon to make a certain statement about what it means. The Journal does need to cover these issues, and an editor to handle that area of coverage isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It will come down to how the editor does his job. The ad itself does include a nod to fact-based reporting, after all. If that part of the job is done well, the rest of it will fall into line.
In my loose view of race and racism, “focusing” (as with a lens) on race and identity is racist in itself. It propagates and normalizes decision-making based on race, which is a construct that does more harm than good.
And the beauty of announcing it is that it gives a lot of opportunity to pressure you to hire the correct person for the job and criticize you when you inevitably fail to do so if the person is not actually an activist.
In other news, the CEO of Red Bull has fired a number of people in top management for pushing woke policy too aggressively in the company. Those let go included the two top North American executives and whole marketing teams.
These folks said that they were not happy with the level of the company’s commitment to pushing social justice themes, so the CEO fired them.
Red Bull has shown us the way forward.
They’ll be in court on Monday.
I’m sure they are anticipating the fall-out and will proceed accordingly.
It’s funny (funny-strange, not funny-ha-ha) how the courts decide a business can hire someone but not fire them, like they decide Obama can enact illegal/unconstitutional executive orders but Trump can’t undo them…
Amen. The news side also needs to be taught journalistic integrity. They rarely lie, but they do suppress information that the public needs if it is to judge properly. Look at their coverage of events in Portland.