This is a sad day for the WSJ and journalism. Baker was about the only editor of a major news outlet who believed in fact-based reporting -- stories without the views of the reporter included.
2
Trump is running out of friends and sycophants. Good. Maybe now Ms. Strassel will be more circumspect in redacting her mendacious articles on behalf of Trump. Good editors look down on propaganda and fabrications.
1
I was tired of the paper so stop subscribing to it, only like Fridays and Saturdays !
Who not let Murdoch`s sons take over, I understand the are liberals .
3
So this means the trump idolatry is going to come to an end? Or he is just another rupert murdoch partisan tool?
1
LOL I suppose the NYT uses itself, WaPo, MSNBC as the litmus test for being hard on Trump.
I loved the paper, until we were attacked by Russians. Right after the 2016 election, their coverage of the Russian attack was slipped into the news always below the headlines about the stellar economy and soon to be tax reductions. It was bazaar. The opinion page had become frightening for a non Trump voter. What I'll miss is their design coverage, the fantastic blogs (daily shot) and other great journalism. It was a great paper, but in the era of Trump, great no more.
7
"...Last month, three former Journal reporters received Pulitzer Prizes — for their work at The Washington Post. " ZINGER!
8
"Mr. Baker ... will also host live events and a Journal-themed show on the Fox Business Network ... an arm of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire"?
The chilling reach of Rupert-vision into control of the "news" people in the USA are given? Rupert is SO well known for fairness, non-partisanship, and love of quality news programming too!
4
Man, I just subscribed WSJ for a 3-month period last month, had regret about it right away, found out the only way to cancel it is by calling them, and now I read this. Gee... What a silly mistake
4
I regularly read both the NYT and the wsj and find the quality of writing and editorial focus in the journal to be far superior. The Times was such a wonderful and interesting read before it adopted its current editorial policy of "resistance" to all things Trump. Let the NYT editorial page, often poorly written and evidence-free, continue spouting its hard left progressive rage. But how about bring back some honest objectivity to the news pages?
7
Are Journal staffers represented by the Guild?
1
WSJ is, like Fox News, complicit in the Trump travesty that has overtaken the country. No surprise, since Murdock came to town. No one can spoil a good newspaper like good old Rupert.
4
"Two people divided by a common language." Winston Churchill on the difference between the Americans and the British.
Mr. Baker was British while working for an Australian famity publisher. Which expands the language division to three people.
1
He got rid of Bret Stephens, because he was too liberal but it turns out he's not liberal enough for the Times.. go figure. The cost cutting was bad, it cost the same for a lot less coverage. I find there is not a lot of substance left. Also, the cheerleading for the illegal immigrants is way over the top, must have to do with the Chamber of Commerce push for cheap labor, I find the editorial board much too ready to abandon the rule of law.
3
He will not be missed.
Now if only the owner of this paper could follow suit.
1
"Last month, three former Journal reporters received Pulitzer Prizes — for their work at The Washington Post."
Need we say more?
5
Every news organization Murdoch bought has been soiled. He is an embarrassment to journalism, and Australia's worst export since Vegemite.
16
I ended my subscription some several years ago. I just stopped thinking the WSJ was honest. I still don't. I don't wish the enterprise well at all.
6
"accusations from reporters that the paper had gone easy on President Trump,"
Pure bias from liberal reporters.
You don't 'go hard' or 'go easy' on anyone. Your job is to report facts.
7
Good riddance but as long as Rupert Murdoch and/or his sons are running things the news coverage will continue to pander to their Robber Baron brethren.
6
Very interesting. I had assumed that under Rupert Murdoch that the Wall Street Journal would go further to the right wing. It did, indeed.
But honest journalists can only take so much, and the staff has clearly "voted with their feet". I think that such a revolt against the Donald Trump vile administration will spread wider. Fox has already cornered the market on fake news - both in their network management and in their personnel.
This phenomena is spreading to the citizenry of the United States right now.
7
I ended my subscription to WSJ when I found myself turning to other newspapers for news on Trump. The WSJ staff was right. They were being beaten to the biggest story in years: the accidental President. He's simply made a mess of matters and is panicking. And let's not kid ourselves, only the Koreans can make a success of their summit. But why should they upset its readers with awkward questions? The WSJ confused relief over Clinton's defeat with satisfaction about Trump and his policies. It mistakenly believed the GOP would keep him under control and now the peace, business desired after Clinton's defeat, has become one wild roller coaster ride. Like Fox, the WSJ is now far behind its competitors.
27
"WSJ is now far behind its competitors" in what, hating Trump? Not by "accident" Hillary's not in the White House.
2
Murdoch, owner of the WSJ, the NYP and FOX, was deemed in a high level British government enquiry into his business affairs not fit on ethical and moral grounds to run a communications operation. With his reputation sullied there, he decided to focus on media operations in the US. Ironically his US citizenship application was processd very quickly without fanfare clandestinely expedited by none other than Newt Gingrich who gets plenty of air time on FOX news to push his extremist and biased GOP agenda.
30
Why hasn't other news organizations (yes, like the NYT WaPo) taken more of an interest in exploring the cozy relationship that the Murdochs have enjoyed with the Right Wing power brokers in this country and abroad, and how they've managed to turn every media outlet they own into a propaganda machine for the Right?
6
Bad Blood, the new book by WSJ reporter John Carreyou about the Theranos medical device fraud, paints a very impressive portrait of the Journal's commitment to its writers. When Theranos and its lawyer David Boies tried to bully and threaten Mr. Carreyou, the Journal's editors (and lawyers) stood up to them. And even though Rupert Murdoch had personally invested millions of dollars in Theranos, he never interfered with the reporting. Mr. Baker can be proud of how he supported some great investigative reporting in the face of great pressure.
13
Telling employees to leave if they are unhappy is incredibly self-destructive. The best employees, who likely have a few standing offers in their pockets, will exercise their options, leaving the mediocre behind, resulting in an overall decline of quality output.
Well done, Mr. Baker.
24
I am troubled by the underlying issue of this article, which is that prominent newspapers (such as the WSJ and the NYT) let political bias enter their news coverage. It is perfectly ok to publish viewpoints in editorials, but news should be factual without bias. I am not a fan of Mr. Trump and I have no opinion on Mr. Baker's performance at the WSJ, but my take is that the WSJ has done a better job than the NYT at keeping bias out of news coverage.
29
I have to disagree with your last sentence. In an effort to be a bit more diverse in reading political news, I have taken advantage of the WSJ subscription offers. I usually am unable to complete the (usually) short-term subscriptions and no longer subscribe at all because I was getting so upset at the bias in its writing and seeming refusal to report on trump's bizarre actions. And the commenters to WSJ political articles--well, only if you want to have a stroke.
30
Omission can also an exhibition of bias, not necessarily balance.
5
I am glad to find that others think as I; that the NYT's editorial bias spills into its news reporting, particularly in the political sphere. Up until now, I also read WSJ. However, if the new editor has it starting to look like the NYT, I may have to rethink the issue.
It is unfortunate for two national newspapers to be leftist sounding boards.
1
",,,,and suggested that other news organizations had become overly negative in their coverage."
The NYT reporter must have been smiling when he wrote this.
After all, the NYT made a conscious editorial decision to inundate its daily coverage, whether hard news, "analysis," or editorials or op-ed pieces, with unrelenting negative coverage of President Trump. The purpose of this negative coverage was to...increase its readership who felt betrayed by the half of Americans who rejected Hillary.
Gerard Baker will be missed. He not only increased the readership of the Journal, he brought a balance to Trump coverage which needled the Times and often showed NYT coverage for what it is now, partisan, biased, and focused on the Dem side of the "culture wars" often to the exclusion of solid reporting.
All a reader can hope in the future is to be able to arrive at a better understanding of the days' events from reading both the Times and the Journal side by side.
17
You complain about unrelenting negative coverage of Mr. trump. But each article is supported by facts and not alternate facts. If the subject of the article is a pathological liar, has no patience or interest to read and study the issues and cares only about his followers, it is hard to to provide positive coverage for such a person.
4
"the NYT made a conscious editorial decision to inundate its daily coverage, whether hard news, "analysis," or editorials or op-ed pieces, with unrelenting negative coverage of President Trump"?
HUH?
Maybe the Times has a commitment to report on the news in a manner that's proportionate to what is actually happening, not some imagined quota system?
So, if 9 out of 10 news stories are about Trump transgressions, scandals, and inept missteps, the NYT (and WSJ) should NOT reflect this preponderance of events in its overall news coverage?
Sounds like you're calling for Orwellian management of "news" coverage or the sort of "news" emanating out of official Russian or North Korean "news" sources?
6
The readers here calling about WSJ editorials motivated by ideology should look into the editorials of this page - they are obviously motivated towards one particular ideology. No newspaper is devoid of ideology in editorials as they are after all human opinions - subjective and predisposed to one's perspective of the world. WSJ addresses one particular perspective and it has its place in the world just as any other news organizations has.
11
The WSJ is the Fox News of print journalism so it will be interesting to see if Mr. Murray will be equally sympathetic to Trump as the readership apparently is (at least based on the overwhelming pro Trump comments in virtually every article on politics).
Actually, it is an interesting contrast to the NYT. It is like the finding the lair of the trolls.
19
Before this Presidential nightmare is over, a lot more careers will be ruined---in fact, I see a best seller in the future titled: "Thrown Under the Bus."
6
So, we now expect the WSJ to look more like the NYT and WaPo, the papers to which the departed editors fled? Oh, joy. More Trump bashing and less analytical news coverage at the WSJ.
16
Well, you always can turn to Trump's own tweets for the analytical coverage of policy issues and domestic and foreign affairs you crave. Really, the man does speak for himself.
3
The WSJ earned its stellar reputation through the quality of its output. Then along came Murdoch, who after tainting some of the UK's best newspapers brought this infection to the WSJ. The rubbish that comes out of Fox News is Murdoch at his worst. I am glad that some of the reporters stood up for a quality WSJ. This editor did not. Pity!
45
Hope the paper improves. Must have been brutal working there.
3
The WSJ's was a reputable business and news media, then Murdoch bought it and it became yet another arm of Fox Entertainment propaganda. It's questionable if this late editor-in-chief change will make any improvement for the failing WSJ.
So Sad!
13
As long as Murdoch has has hands on the WSJ, their credibility will continue to decline. No one with a brain takes Faux News seriously anymore, since they became a propaganda organ for the GOP, and the literate public are starting to look askance at WSJ for the same reason. It's a shame, since the Journal has a strong history (pre-Murdoch) of journalistic excellence.
12
The Wall Street Journal used to be a decent newspaper. Now, it's nothing more than a mouthpiece for Trump. But that's Murdoch for you. Whatever he touches turns to rubbish.
17
I enjoyed posting there. I was trusted there, not here. I would get email likes. Maybe the new editor will leave that Freedom of Speech element alone.
2
I am not at all convinced the reason Baker was replaced is because he wasnt harder on Trump. The WSJ has never been renown for its political reporting. What it is good at is news and feature pieces about the players and interests converging, clashing and/or conflicting in the domains of commerce domestic and foreign. It is unrealistic if not outright disingenuous to hold the WSJ's political coverage to the NYT, WAPO or Politico.
4
Gerard Baker must be a fawning admirer of Trump, ready to sacrifice ethical journalism in order to maintain access to the White House and proximity to power. He demanded his staff to stick to reporting on Trump rather than packaging it “in exegesis and selective criticism.”
In August 2017 Baker came under fire after the Journal refrained from publishing the full transcript of an interview with Trump in the Oval Office. It took the public to learn everything that was said from a different outlet, Politico. More humiliating for WSJ was the “mutually flattering” back and forth between Trump and Baker. The two discussed golf and travel, and Baker didn’t press Trump as he wandered or got facts wrong.
9
Of all Trump's enablers, I have the most contempt for the WSJ. First, they know better. Their legendary editor Vermont Royster would (I feel certain) have placed country above party, and diligently pointed out every instance in which Trump's actions undermine democracy even if they advance a conservative agenda. Maybe Gerard Baker can't do so because this is not his country.
Second, because they have the trust and confidence of the audience that is most in need of the truth - the culturally conservative economic elite - that is least likely to get it elsewhere because they watch Fox.
15
Such mincing coverage. The WSJ has played the propaganda role increasingly, and it's quite obvious in it's treatments of tariffs and the collussion conspiracy. It's a real issue for the economy if Trump is enabled by the business community, who apparently can't see the storm on the horizon. Global trade is not manifest destiny, we earned it. Until recently.
9
We need both the slightly-left and slightly-right to be robust and credible. The Journal has been a paper of record like the Times and the Post, and our shared interest is that it retain its place through integrity.
18
How about exactly accurate and perfectly neutral and not called fake news by a president who constantly lies.
11
The Wall Street Journal has been one of the worlds great newspapers all my life. News Corp getting its claws on it was a tragedy, but the Editorial staff have done a tremendous job keeping it mostly fair. Except in the opinion section, which apparently has to present Murdoch's opinions.
20
WSJ editorials are are not only reactionary but extremely predictable in their content. While the reporters may be competent professionals, I cannot feel confident about the choices of what is printed. Whether the Murdochs are motivated more by ideology or profit is uncertain to me, but it doesn’t seem to matter. They are feeding their customers what that market wants. There seems to be no reliable relationship between content and truth. And no demand for it from the customers.
30
Except for a brief six-month period in 1990, I was a subscriber to the WSJ for almost 31 years from September 1986 through May 2017.
I loved reading the Journal but after News Corp bought it in 2007, I noticed that the paper’s editorial pages started getting increasingly and pointedly biased. And, after Trump became president, the WSJ editorial board seemed to largely turn a blind eye to the president’s constant lying, obnoxious tweeting, trashing of our intelligence agencies and democratic institutions, and generally abhorrent behavior – all because a majority of his economic policies were in line with their conservative business philosophy. To my mind, they appeared to believe that the ends justified whatever means Trump was using to achieve them.
More importantly, in today’s hyper partisan atmosphere, their op-eds continue to reflect the majority Republican viewpoint that “Russian collusion” is simply an excuse for Democrats to try and overturn Trump’s election, which could be considered as a legitimate political opinion, if it didn’t include an unseemly trashing of the FBI, our intelligence agencies and the Justice Department. When did parochial party interests supersede national interests at the WSJ?
I know all this because I still read the paper on occasion in my local library. It’s heartening to see WSJ’s news side display more backbone lately than its editorial pages. Maybe Baker’s removal will make the WSJ better and inspire me to subscribe to it once again!
52
Citizen Baker--- (good to see a Brit in the op-ed room...Does he know the words to God Bless America?).
One word---
Rosebud
6
The Wall Street Journal is "an arm of Rupert Murdoch's media empire"? Are you kidding me? If they are losing talent to the NYT and WP that makes them a "market leader" on several levels.
8
score one for the swamp
3
The reporting at the WSJ is excellent, but the op-ed brain of the paper is pitted and rotten. Recognize that the broadsheet is still doing superlative work, despite the ownership interest.
28
"During his tenure at The Journal, more than a dozen left for new jobs at The Washington Post and The New York Times."
That explains a few things.
23
"during an Oval Office interview last year, the editor made small talk with the president about golf "
Shocking!
7
As a subscriber to both the NY Times and the WSJ, I will say both offer good reporting. The Journal though is more balanced and objective in its news reporting and contrary to what some believe, it is obvious that there is little love for President Trump on the Journal's op-ed page. I hope the Journal just gets better from here. Given that the Journal has far outpaced its peers for subscriber retention and additions, even the Gray Lady could learn a thing or two from their NYC neighbor.
22
WSJ has deteriorated markedly in the last few years. I now subscribe to the FT.
8
Yes, love the WSJ because there are no high-pitched screeds from its Editorial Board. Still measured and professional. A shame if that ends.
1
He made its weekend edition a must read and a worthy competitor to NYT. Other than that, buh bye.
4
I cancelled my subscription to the once venerable publication after the Murdoch takeover. They have proven me right ever since.
59
So common. If you don't like it leave. This is what's wrong with the system as configured. If you are in power with money, you can just make everyone else miserable - all that matters is you're taken care of.
19
It is time to finally cancel my subscription to the WSJ - there are the occasional articles that I like but for the most part it is right wing fake news.
44
Agree. I cancelled as the only way to protest. They come close to Hannity-like attacks on FBI and intelligence agencies, and Kim Strassel is pushing conspiracy theories that would make Trump proud. The comments are happy hunting grounds for the most strident insult-mongering Trumpistas. I hate losing the Saturday Review section which is one of the best newpaper features in the country.
16
I was a long time subscriber to the WSJ until the news section continually turned its gaze from the excesses of the Trump administration. We need a center-right complement to the center-left NYT, and I hope the WSJ will again perform that role.
54
old guard GOP vs. tea,
6
wsj evaded troubling stories about trump, including his outright lies. maybe baker had a thing for ivanka.
17
If Mr. Baker was fired because he did not kowtow to the liberal leanings of many mainstream journalists, as this article suggests, that is a shame.
The editorials of the WSJ have always been conservative, to put it mildly. The news articles, which as at many news publications, are independent of the editorials, have tilted to the left. But if the journals news is about to take a sharp turn to the left and adopt a style analogous to say, the NYT, I will be cancelling my subscription.
Like many I want balanced news. I have a great deal of trouble finding objective information, which is a shame. So I need to read multiple perspectives. I have no trouble finding leftward leaning news. If I now need to rely on Fox for coverage for a different perspective, in lieu of the WSJ, so be it. But it's unfortunate.
The reporters at the WSJ should understand that they have jobs because people like me are paid subscribers. At least we have been.
16
Kowtowing to Rupert Murdoch also qualifies as "kowtowing".
There are plenty of conservative thinkers and writers who are not toadies.
If your standard is Fox News then you have no standard basically- that is a barely disguised state propaganda station. Good grief.
20
Alex wrote,
"The reporters at the WSJ should understand that they have jobs because people like me are paid subscribers."
So if you don't get a right wing slant in you news source you won't read it?
Sounds like the best members of their Newsroom staff left because of this bias (and I read the WSJ online every day). With a better working environment at other publications 3 of them won Pulitzers last year.
32
By left leaning journalists, you mean those who want to report on facts rather than propagandistic fantasies?
45
The once best of all newspapers, The Wall Street Journal, more or less destroyed by News Corporation after acquisition. I believe that I met Mr. Thompson years ago and unintentionally directed some spittle towards him after he had entered an elevator with a colleague. He said that he was used to being spit upon.
16
"...elevating Matthew J. Murray to the top spot at one of the country’s pre-eminent newspapers".
"PRE-EMINENT" = surpassing of others. Correct if one assumes that it surpasses other newspapers in uncritical reporting of the Trump presidency.
14
Interesting that while Baker has been accused of being pro-Trump, if you read the comment section of the WSJ you'd think that Baker was leading a gang of deep-state never Trumpers out to destroy dear old Donald.
9
The WSJ has had a sharp division between its reporters and its opinionists, who are right-wing reactionaries, except for the occasional centrist, such as Bill Galston. It is good that Mr. Baker is moving to the opinion pages, where he can carry the water for Trump and blast any good that Clinton and Obama did.
This change might have been due to the Murdoch sons, who seem more flexible than their father.
12
Read everything in the mainstream printed media. And then think. See where that leads you......
6
It correctly leads me to believe that we have a criminal in the White House.
28
This sounds like a positive change. I do not think the WSJ has fulfilled its mission well in covering the Trump administration. I consider the WSJ to be an excellent publication and I rely on it a lot. Integrity requires holding those in power to a high standard.
13
Thank goodness!!!! WSJ is a great paper, but Baker’s views went beyond traditional conservative beliefs.
18
Once Murdoch bought the Wall Street Journal it lost its objectivity, very sad it was once a great newspaper focussed on business.
59
At about the age of 12 I was given a subscription to the WSJ, and it was done at a time when my dad's friend and stock broker was visiting our farm in VT. My siblings and I had been gifted some stock by our grandfather, and I was encouraged to take an interest.
I took one look at that paper, and immediately cemented my liberal political philosophy I still hold today. Best gift ever.
57
WSJ has been more balanced and fact driven about radioactive Trump issue(s) than other mainstream media sources. Neither pro- nor anti-Trump. An admirable walking of the line at a time when anyone not virulently opposed to all things Trump is often assumed to be his over-the-top supporter. Hopefully the Journal will not join the baying pack and will instead hold true to its just-the-facts coverage.
18
@Bean: You either have reading comprehension issues or you are delusional! But maybe you also find Murdoch's other ventures, like Fox News, to be "fair and balanced."
11
I'm a long-time regular reader of the WSJ (as well as the NYT and 2 other papers) and have noted that while the political news stories themselves seemed generally objective, the headlines generally tended to downplay aspects of the story that were unfavorable to the Trump administration. Given the stories about Mr. Baker and the newsroom (and the WSJ editorial board's and columnists' ideological perspective), I have to also wonder if stories were, to at least some extent, edited, killed or subject to heightened oversight for essentially partisan political reasons. I wish Mr. Baker well, but if his reassignment leads to change (and it may not), that would be a good thing.
64
I concur about their hard news, and the op-ed section has become nearly tabloid
17
Has become? It's been there for a while.
Well said. I have noted of late the WSJ opinion pieces have been about the news of the day and often contrasting the opinion articles elsewhere. Then I would read the Editorial Board pieces and it would appear to be written directly by the White House. The contrast was apparent and it took away from the credibility of the paper.
And I think the readership has gone up, like all paper have, because of Trump.
9
And if he's unhappy with his demotion, maybe he should seek employment elsewhere.
108
Seems like a demotion for Gerard Baker. However, he is now free to seek employment elsewhere and may perhaps end up in the white house desperately looking for talented people.
48
His WSJ editorial page has reliably ignored Trump’s appalling behavior, found a way to excuse it, and focused on imagined Mueller misdeeds in utter denial of all logic and common sense. It seems more than likely that the news reporters are happy to see this Trump flunky go, whether or not they say so publicly.
211
It Gilbert and Sullivan were still about the WSJ would be the subject of a winning comedy show.
Well, the last stone has fallen. The WSJ has always been a strange institution: its standard reporters are the usual lefty crusading journalism school types, but it's management and editorial board are moderate economic conservatives. The Journal's editorial point of view struggles with the true conservative preoccupation with liberty and limited government, but can be counted on to support low taxes, limited regulation and a crony capitalism version of free trade. That's better than nothing. Now the inmates have captured the asylum and we can expect the Journal to adopt the same Trump Derangement Syndrome we see in other media.
I was not a Trump supporter, but would have voted for almost anyone to keep Hillary out of the White House. I remember being amazed on election night that Trump had somehow beaten everyone: the dems, the Clintons, the media, that freak show of RINO Republican candidates and even the Republican establishment. I wondered then how those who he vanquished would react. Now we know. The left has become the resistance, and everyone else would rather burn down the country than allow Trump to succeed.
The only thing I will be able to read in the morning will be the scores and highlights on ESPN. I skip their lifestyle and political reporting.
11
He did not beat everyone. He did not win the hearts or votes of most Americans. He is now President, but most voters chose a different candidate.
61
Who's sitting in the Oval Office? That sounds like a win to me.
Ahem..."People would rather burn down the country than see Trump succeed". Then using (stealing)the term "derangement syndrome".
Sounds like McConnell, Ryan et al. with ability to block even an infrastructure bill under the black President.
Does the irony escape you?
19
The WSJ Editorial position on Trump during the election and its aftermath caused me to cancel my subscription.
"Too soft on Trump" doesn't describe the enmity the WSJ deserves.
When I called to cancel, the WSJ's representative asked me why I was cancelling and I described that I felt it was entirely inappropriate for an Australian to own not only a major news publication in America, but countless television channels as well, all of which are used to sway American public opinion toward UnAmerican ideas. And that I would no longer contribute any financial benefit to their organization.
The last thing we need in this country is another Murdoch sponsored organ broadcasting propaganda that is as close to lauding sedition as possible without invoking government action.
I would encourage their newsroom people to continue to challenge their employer perhaps even more stridently. The populace isn't as stupid as the Murdoch family thinks it is.
222
Although he is by far our most appalling export, Rupert Murdoch is not an Australian. He renounced his Australian citizenship in 1985 for US citizenship to facilitate business dealings.
You're welcome to him.
16
Oh no you don't! Murdoch is no longer an Australian citizen, he is a good old USA boy! He left his Australian citizenship behind to became one of you. He is one of the best export trade deals we ever had. We won you lost. Please don't try to renegotiate that deal, we won't accept him back.
19
Tel, even that doesn't tell the full story of trump's US citizenship. It was expedited by Congress to retroactively put on a regular footing his ownership of TV stations, which would otherwise have been illegal.
10
"Balanced" was Baker's euphemism for cowardly. Good riddance. The reporters knew he was completely in the tank for DJT. That's no way to run a news organization.
111
Would you consider taking him back. We've had enough of him, thank you very much.
2
Historically the editorial page of the WSJ read like the propaganda arm of the Republican Party but the rest of the paper was almost always unbiased. Under Baker the rest of the paper has made a rightward shift. Most of the time it is still unbiased news, but there the tone has definitely changed.
89
All this talk of Baker as a temperate, even-keeled, objective editor is nonsense. The WSJ is simply a print version of Fox News, written carefully to give the appearance of being fair and balanced, whereas in reality it is no more unbiased than Sarah Sanders.
126
I grew up reading the WSJ every day. Now, it's useless. The editorials offend me (and my intelligence) and the news can be found anywhere else. It's a has-been Murdock rag.
199
exactly why I cancelled my subscription. Refuse to use my hard-earned money to support such nonsense.
32
After 10+ years, I canceled for the same reason.
30
Put me in the same category - Kimberly Strassel is the esteemed writer of absolutely nothing. Attacking the FBI and being the cheerleader for Trump was making me nauseous.
4
Apparently some WSJ writers have reservations about Mr. Trump: "Mr. Trump should worry that Americans will stop believing anything he says." (Wall Street Journal, 3May2018)
10
I use the WSJ as a gut check against the incessant noise in the media around Trump. If both the NYT and the WSJ cover a story about him, then I know it's important.
12
Unfortunately the carefully-constructed alternative-fact reality of the Right doesn't need the WSJ to begin with -- they collect only the less gullible fringe, those who don't fall for what Fox News and Infowars are slinging.
5
Good riddance to a Trump-supporting Murdoch puppet. Now if we could only get rid of Murdoch...
73
Oh yes, everyone is so hard on poor Mr. Trump.
Great journalistic instincts Mr. Baker. Eventually you will get the boot.
14
Good Riddance. Long overdue. "faced unrest..." and lost a bunch of their best reporters to other news outlets because of the unhappiness with paper.
39
I always wondered why Mr. Baker needed his own column in the Journal. He should have stuck with being editor-in-chief.
The old Journal would do hard-hitting investigative pieces that were well-written. That's rare now. The editorial page and much of the op-ed is just Trump-loving boot lickers.
62
The news coverage, which was fine before, despite the editorial page right-wing nonsense, changed as soon as Murdoch bought the paper. Sad.
8
The European and American press lost all objectivity about Hitler --according to Mr. Baker.
16
It is the Wall Street Journal's failure to address Trump's vast failures as a leader that should be the concern of the new editor. When a president lies to the populace, when a president uses hate speech, and when a president rejects counsel from experts, all of these issues must be accepted as at least serious, if not also reason to remove him from office.
Peggy Noonan, in her weekly editorial this past week, remarked upon a severe erosion in the public trust in government. She closes with this: that Trump "tends in his statements to undermine public trust." She calls upon citizens to recognize that "what can be handled by us, should be." That lacks force and clarity.
But today, the Journal buried Trump's proposal that he can pardon himself on page 5.
I just hope that the new editor is not more right that Baker.
156
What will the new Mot the Wall Street Journal, a newspaper that once covered the White House from the big business pov look like?
And will it regain its editorial backbone - to say, on its Editorial Page, how Trump policies affect business.
According to every other daily print news resource, Business and The Market are quite worried about on-off sanctions and tariffs on bulk products they turn into consumer goods, here or abroad, and the effect of retaliatory tariffs.
Businesses, in general, or at least those at the top love paying lower taxes. But they don’t like the deficit balloon attached.
They also seem concerned about the overvalued market, a sign of correction or sudden inflation as consumer costs are pushed up die to Wall Street International’s effective devaluation of the dollar,
Or are people at the top betting on Trump’s Miracle Recovery Formula.
I haven’t gotten a good read yet on how they collectively feel about the end of the Dodd-Franks laws, that required banks to be banks, not high-stakes players on dome strange financial instruments that look more like a very fast moving roulette wheel, where the ball can roll around for months or years before dropping into slots where every third one is a. Zero.
Big money joined the Trump Base to get this erratic CEO who has sometimes won but oft failed loud self-promoter into office.
If Murdoch lets the WSJ be the WSJ, maybe we’ll learn how they feel 500 days into the Business Leader Administration.
12
Have to say I admire Mr. Baker's response to the desire for Trump bashing. He's absolutely right that other publications have lost their objectivity. Trump bashing is so common now it's become repetitive and boring. Best to avoid it.
24
The news that the President is a crook is really only repetitive because he keeps committing crimes.
93
The Big Lie must be confronted by the Bashing Truth.
28
Is it really trump bashing. Trump does a great job of setting himself up for criticism.
36
As a reader of the WSJ, I am very disappointed. Under Mr Baker's leadership, the WSJ is the only top-level media outlet that is still producing objective journalism amidst the turmoil of the Trump era. Reportedly he faced an insurrection from some of his his staff, who were desperate to join the Resistance as have many of their counterparts at the other major news operations. But he stood fast, apparently recognizing that the nation has a need these days for clear-eyed correspondents reporting on the political and culture wars rather than more soldiers fighting in them.
I hope that his integrity and professionalism have not cost him his job. We will know before too long as his successor establishes his own priorities.
32
"Clear-eyed" is about as myopic an observation that can be seen when it comes to the editorial position of the WSJ.
33
I was, of course, referring to reporting and not opinion, which can be very different in the WSJ. Editorials can be as biased as you like (that's what they are for), but reporting must stick to the facts.
The distinction between reporting and opinion pieces is becoming less clear all the time in other elite news organizations.
Yes, Mr. Baker is to be congratulated for not becoming a foot soldier in partisan politics as the NYT Editorial Board has become. Withstanding the need to infuse reporting with one's own opinion is to be applauded. Everyone in media seems to believe that customers are dying to hear their opinions. Ideologues are, perhaps, but the rest of us long for just the objective facts. We'll form our own opinions.
3
Murdoch is smart enough to hit us high and low.
Because he needs the will of the masses to sway democracy we have "newspapers" like the U.K.s The Sun.
But because he needs to manage the will of the Titans of Industry - Murdoch also has (and needs, for personal credibility) the WSJ.
I recommend a months WSJ subscription for all us NYT fans. It's another world. Everything is fine and not at all on fire.
I'm heartened to hear the journalists there recognize the disconnect and have raised their voice.
Ultimately business - like nature - cannot live in a world of fantasy. Accounting, law, market adoption - there are immutable rules and definitions. The fact that a business paper has become the trumpet for fiction is not sustainable.
Hopefully this is a turning point where disagreements can at least be fact based and where the pressing and almost literally burning issues can be brought to the fore and discussed.
We desperately need a sane counter voice. Because Murdochs reputation as well as our democracy rests on that.
122
The WSJ is the only non-fiction major newspaper in the country. It is, by FAR, the most objective source of written news in the United States. If fact, on balance it is critical of Trump, and is about as likely to find fault with what he does it is to opine that he is doing something correctly. It avoids histrionics. It avoids hyperbole. It avoids FABRICATION.
It is no wonder the WSJ is the most successful newspaper in the United States. People trust it because it relates facts objectively in its new articles.
Would it be that there was a single other major newspaper in the US that took this approach.
9
Depends on your definition of successful. It has a readership vastly lower than many of its competitors (NYT has 130 mil users per month), even though those competitors, being "leftist" journals, compete for mostly the same customers. It is probably more profitable because it is a business newspaper, and many businesses include subscription to WSJ as a perk to many of their employees.
1
Murdoch does not have a reputation except deservedly for Fox News being a propaganda outlet for the Republican party. Murdoch's British paper supported Brexit. He has worked to enable the power of the wealthy for decades.
22