As a result of the conflict a number of staff including Bret Stephens, Bari Weiss, Robert Messenger, and Sohrab Ahmari left the WSJ. The candidacy and later Presidency of Donald Trump split the Editorial Board and further separated the Board from the Journal's news department. In 2016 the environmental business group Partnership for Responsible Growth took out ads in the opinion section of the Journal which criticized the Board's position on climate change. When Rupert Murdoch bought the Journal from the Bancrofts he promised Paul Steiger that “What is on the Opinion pages will never be allowed to flow into the news pages,” and “The two must be kept distinct and while I sometimes find myself nodding in agreement with the comment and commentators, even I occasionally find the views a little too far to the right.” One reference work in 2011 described the editorial pages as "rigidly neoconservative" while noting that the news coverage "has enjoyed a sterling reputation among readers of all political stripes".
"While Journal reporters keep busy informing readers," wrote one reporter in 1982, " Journal editorial writers put forth views that often contradict the paper's best reporting and news analysis." Two summaries published in 1995 by the progressive blog Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, and in 1996 by the Columbia Journalism Review criticized the Journal 's editorial page for inaccuracy during the 1980s and 1990s. Ĭontrasts have been noted between the Journal's news reporting and its editorial pages. Royster, whose Christmas article In Hoc Anno Domini has appeared every December 25 since 1949. It was written by a former editor, Vermont C. The second is titled And the Fair Land, and describes the bounty of America. The first is titled The Desolate Wilderness, and describes what the Pilgrims saw when they arrived at the Plymouth Colony. Įach Thanksgiving the editorial page prints two articles that have appeared there since 1961. Just as radical as the Christian doctrine. We are not much interested in labels but if we were to choose one, we would say we are radical. People will say we are conservative or even reactionary. We oppose all infringements on individual rights, whether they stem from attempts at private monopoly, labor union monopoly or from an overgrowing government. We believe in the individual, in his wisdom and his decency. Our comments and interpretations are made from a definite point of view. On our editorial page we make no pretense of walking down the middle of the road. Its historical position was much the same. If these principles sound unexceptionable in theory, applying them to current issues is often unfashionable and controversial.
ALLYSIA FINLEY FOR FREE
So over the past century and into the next, the Journal stands for free trade and sound money against confiscatory taxation and the ukases of kings and other collectivists and for individual autonomy against dictators, bullies and even the tempers of momentary majorities.
We speak for free markets and free people, the principles, if you will, marked in the watershed year of 1776 by Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence and Adam Smith's " Wealth of Nations". The Journal describes the history of its editorials: Bartley (served 1972–2000) were especially influential in providing a conservative interpretation of the news on a daily basis. As editors of the editorial page, Vermont C. The Wall Street Journal editorial board members oversee the Journal's editorial page, dictating the tone and direction of the newspaper's opinion section.Įvery Saturday and Sunday, three editorial page writers and host Paul Gigot, editor of the Editorial Page, appear on Fox News Channel's Journal Editorial Report to discuss current issues with a variety of guests.
The board is known for its strong conservative positions which at times brings it into conflict with the Journal's news side. The Editorial Board at The Wall Street Journal is the editorial board of the New York newspaper The Wall Street Journal.
0 kommentar(er)
