Giuseppe Sandro Mela.
«The Wall Street Journal is owned by the media magnate Rupert Murdoch, who speaks regularly with Mr. Trump and recently dined with the president at the White House.»
«When Ivanka Trump, the president’s older daughter, walked into the Oval Office, Mr. Baker told her, according to the transcript, “It was nice to see you out in Southampton a couple weeks ago,”»
«Gerard Baker, the editor in chief of The Wall Street Journal, has faced unease and frustration in his newsroom over his stewardship of the newspaper’s coverage of President Trump, which some journalists there say has lacked toughness and verve»
«Some staff members expressed similar concerns on Wednesday after Mr. Baker, in a series of blunt late-night emails, criticized his staff over their coverage of Mr. Trump’s Tuesday rally in Phoenix, describing their reporting as overly opinionated»
«Could we please just stick to reporting what he said rather than packaging it in exegesis and selective criticism?»
* * * * * * * *
«Il modo più efficiente per appoggiare il Presidente Trump è consentire che i giornalisti liberal democratici lo attacchino in continuazione con stupide menzogne ed odio viscerale».
* * * * * * * *
Il The Wall Street Journal pubblica lui stesso i dati relativi alla propria diffusione e li distribuisce anche in versione pdf.
Ogni giorno la sua edizione digitale è letta da 1.41 milioni di visitatori unici, ciascuno dei quali accede a 5.63 pagine.
I maschi costituiscono il 68% dei lettori e le femmine il 32%: l’età media è 43 anni.
L’81% hanno una laurea o titolo superiore ed il 41% sono da annoverarsi tra i milionari.
Il reddito mediodei lettori ammonta a 242,007 Usd.
I lettori sono in significativo calo.
Diciamo che i lettori non sono dei poveracci.
Un pubblico molto selezionato, dunque, come d’altra parte è logico per un giornale economico.
Sicuramente, il The Wall Street Journal non è il giornale seguito dalla gente comune.
Ma se la gente comune non lo legge, il The Wall Street Journal non può nemmeno influenzarne le posizioni politiche.
Sicuramente è importante cercare di condizionare la classe che economicamente conta, ci mancherebbe, ma un milione di votanti su di un totale potenziale di quasi duecentoquaranta milioni è percentuale trascurabile. In effetti, gli aventi diritto al voto sono circa 208 milioni, perché molte condanne penali comportano la revoca oppure la sospensione del diritto al voto.
Mr Backer però sostiene una tesi che va ben oltre le beghe politiche.
Un giornalista decente dovrebbe prima riportare le notizie nel modo più corretto ed obiettivo possibile, e solo dopo esprimente il suo particolare parere.
Ma per scrivere in questa maniera servirebbe innanzi tutto essere persone oneste ed equidistanti, caratteristica questa del tutto aliena ai liberal democratici, tanto che alla fine è dovuto intervenire Mr Backer in persona.
Un tratto caratteristico dei giornalisti liberal democratici è quello di aver venduto l’anima al diavolo pur di farsi assumere presso una grande testata, che l’editore mantiene sborsando cifre davvero ingenti.
Poi reclamano la “libertà di stampa” e vorrebbero pubblicare ciò che piacesse a loro piuttosto che quello che piaccia alla proprietà.
Questa non è la “libertà di stampa“.
Se è vero che tutti i cittadini dovrebbero essere liberi di esprimere le proprie idee ed opinioni, nei limiti fissati dai codici civile e penale, è altrettanto vero che di volesse pubblicare qualcosa se lo dovrebbe pagare di sua borsa.
Il giornalista che non condividesse la linea politica ovvero economica e sociale della proprietà dovrebbe semplicemente dare le dimissioni, magari prima di essere licenziato.
→ The New York Times. 2017-08-23. Wall Street Journal Editor Admonishes Reporters Over Trump Coverage
Gerard Baker, the editor in chief of The Wall Street Journal, has faced unease and frustration in his newsroom over his stewardship of the newspaper’s coverage of President Trump, which some journalists there say has lacked toughness and verve.
Some staff members expressed similar concerns on Wednesday after Mr. Baker, in a series of blunt late-night emails, criticized his staff over their coverage of Mr. Trump’s Tuesday rally in Phoenix, describing their reporting as overly opinionated.
“Sorry. This is commentary dressed up as news reporting,” Mr. Baker wrote at 12:01 a.m. on Wednesday morning to a group of Journal reporters and editors, in response to a draft of the rally article that was intended for the newspaper’s final edition.
He added in a follow-up, “Could we please just stick to reporting what he said rather than packaging it in exegesis and selective criticism?”
A copy of Mr. Baker’s emails was reviewed by The New York Times.
Several phrases about Mr. Trump that appeared in the draft of the article reviewed by Mr. Baker were not included in the final version published on The Journal’s website.
The draft, in its lead paragraph, described the Charlottesville, Va., protests as “reshaping” Mr. Trump’s presidency. That mention was removed.
The draft also described Mr. Trump’s Phoenix speech as “an off-script return to campaign form,” in which the president “pivoted away from remarks a day earlier in which he had solemnly called for unity.” That language does not appear in the article’s final version.
Contacted about the emails on Wednesday, a Wall Street Journal spokeswoman wrote in a statement: “The Wall Street Journal has a clear separation between news and opinion. As always, the key priority is to focus reporting on facts and avoid opinion seeping into news coverage.”
In February, Mr. Baker fielded tough questions at an all-hands staff meeting about whether the newspaper’s reporting on Mr. Trump was too soft. Mr. Baker denied that notion, and he suggested that other newspapers had abandoned their objectivity about the president; he also encouraged journalists unhappy with the Journal’s coverage to seek employment elsewhere.
But apprehensiveness in the newsroom has persisted. This month, Politico obtained and published a transcript of a White House interview with Mr. Trump conducted by Mr. Baker and several Journal reporters and editors. Unusually for an editor in chief, Mr. Baker took a leading role in the interview and made small talk with Mr. Trump about travel and playing golf.
When Ivanka Trump, the president’s older daughter, walked into the Oval Office, Mr. Baker told her, according to the transcript, “It was nice to see you out in Southampton a couple weeks ago,” apparently referring to a party that the two had attended.
The Wall Street Journal is owned by the media magnate Rupert Murdoch, who speaks regularly with Mr. Trump and recently dined with the president at the White House.
→ CNN. 2017-08-23. WSJ staffers unhappy with cautious treatment of President Trump
The Wall Street Journal’s cautious treatment of President Trump has created internal strife at the storied paper and raised questions about its editor-in-chief, Gerard Baker, several Journal sources have told CNNMoney.
Baker’s latest demonstration — a series of late-night emails urging editors to soften the paper’s coverage of Trump’s Phoenix speech, even to the point of removing context — left some Journal staffers frustrated and discouraged, those sources said.
“Sorry. This is commentary dressed up as reporting,” Baker wrote of one draft of an article about the speech in emails obtained by The New York Times. “Could we please just stick to reporting what he said rather than packaging it in exegesis and selective criticism?”
The portions of the draft that were removed from the final article included context about how the president’s speech differed from statements he had made the day before. One passage that was edited out called Trump’s speech “an off-script return to campaign form” that “pivoted away from remarks a day earlier in which he solemnly called for unity.”
A line that described the Charlottesville protests as “reshaping” Trump’s presidency was also removed from the final article.
Both Baker and a Journal spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment regarding the emails.
Baker’s cautious approach to Trump has been a source of frustration to many Journal staffers for some time now.
Earlier this month, Politico published a transcript of the Journal’s most recent interview with Trump. The interview, which was led by Baker himself, cast the editor-in-chief as overly chummy with the president.
At the time, some staffers told CNNMoney they believed that Baker was going out of his way to be deferential to Trump in order to maintain access to the White House and proximity to power. Staffers also chafe at Baker’s insistence on conducting the interviews with Trump himself, rather than letting the paper’s journalists take the lead.
Other sources who spoke with CNNMoney cautioned that such frustrations were overblown. They said the Journal has always prided itself on being cautious and judicious in its reporting, and touted the paper’s aggressive ongoing coverage of Trump’s business entanglements.
The Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Fox News and has become very close to the president and his administration. Sources at both the White House and in Murdoch’s orbit say the two men talk multiple times a week.
Baker has defended his paper’s coverage of Trump before. In a town hall meeting with employees in February, he stressed the importance of being objective rather than oppositional, and said the notion that the Journal went easy on Trump was “fake news.”
Baker has also sent memos to employees stressing the importance of “balance,” a word some staffers have come to interpret as code for softer coverage.
→ The San Diego Union-Tribune. 2017-08-25. Was CNN’s Don Lemon wrong to call Trump’ ‘unhinged’ over Phoenix rally?
It has become a custom for President Donald Trump to refer to CNN as “fake news,” but very few times has the network hit back as directly as Tuesday night when news anchor Don Lemon called him “unhinged,” “embarrassing,” “petty” and a “child.”
As Trump wrapped up his speech at a rally in Phoenix, Arizona, Lemon looked at the camera that night and delivered an on-air tirade that sparked some debate over the mainstream media’s tone in covering the president.
“I’m just going to speak from the heart here,” Lemon told his audience. “What we have witnessed was a total eclipse of the facts. Someone who came out on stage and lied directly to the American people.”
Watch the entire clip here and judge for yourself.
Lemon delivered his remarks Tuesday, but it wasn’t until Wednesday that the clip began to go viral on Twitter where the CNN anchor’s comments revived criticism of the media’s coverage of Trump.
CNN is no stranger to criticism from Trump or his supporters. As Newt Gingrich noted, Trump spent a portion of his speech in Phoenix stepping up his attacks on the mainstream media over coverage of his response to the recent violent events in Charlottesville, Virginia.
“These are sick people,” Trump told the crowd. “If you wanted to discover the source of the division in our country, look no further than the fake news and the crooked media.”
In July, Trump tweeted a short clip showing him body-slamming a person whose face was superimposed with a CNN logo. Some saw that as violent rhetoric. Media pundits and critics expressed worry that Trump’s recent speech in Phoenix reached a new level of viciousness that could eventually lead to violence against journalists.
“It really feels like a matter of time, frankly, before someone gets hurt,” ABC’s Cecilia Vega told CNN’s Brian Stelter. Some news organizations and journalism groups echoed similar concerns on Twitter.
But while Trump criticizes the media over coverage of his response to Charlottesville, his critics have also stepped up their calls to remove him from office or, at the very least, muzzle him. To Trump’s critics, Lemon’s commentary was music to the ears. And they praised him dearly for it.
Perceptions over how the media cover Trump have preoccupied journalists behind closed doors for months. The most recent evidence of this came in the form of late-night emails journalists at The Wall Street Journal received from their editor in chief, Gerard Baker, on Tuesday.
Baker admonished reporters over coverage of Trump’s rally that he saw as “overly opinionated,” The New York Times reported in a story Wednesday. In one email he wrote, “Sorry. This is commentary dressed up as news reporting.”
The paper on Wednesday clarified its stance on the balance between opinion and news in its coverage: “The Wall Street Journal has a clear separation between news and opinion. As always, the key priority is to focus reporting on facts and avoid opinion seeping into news coverage.”
The role of journalists is to report the facts, but the Trump era has challenged old traditions in which news anchors such as Walter Cronkite or John Chancellor were allowed to offer context or critiques. Should opinion never be allowed in news? Should journalists be allowed to speak critically, even if just on Twitter?
Share your thoughts on this and past media coverage and whether you think it’s changed over the years.
→ The Washington Post. 2017-08-25. ‘Stick to reporting’: Wall Street Journal editor trashes staff’s Trump article in leaked emails
The Wall Street Journal’s top editor once again appears to be facing discord from within his newsroom over the newspaper’s coverage of President Trump.
Since the election, some journalists at the Wall Street Journal have expressed frustration with what they say is overly cautious and deferential reporting on Trump, at a time when competitors are aggressively scrutinizing the president.
The most recent sign of discontent emerged Wednesday in emails leaked to the New York Times, along with the draft of a story critiqued by the editor in the emails. While internal emails and memos routinely leak from news organizations, story drafts do not.
According to the Times, Gerard Baker, the editor in chief of the Wall Street Journal, emailed a group of reporters and editors regarding the draft of a Journal article covering Trump’s rally in Phoenix. In his midnight message, Baker asked his staff to tone down language in the story that he characterized as opinionated.
“Sorry. This is commentary dressed up as news reporting,” Baker wrote in one email, according to the Times.
In a subsequent email, he said, “Could we please just stick to reporting what he said rather than packaging it in exegesis and selective criticism?”
The Times also obtained a copy of the draft reviewed by Baker. When comparing it to the final version published in the Journal, the Times found that several phrases were removed.
In one instance, the Journal removed language that described the Charlottesville protests as “reshaping” Trump’s presidency. In another, the newspaper’s staff took out a description of Trump’s Phoenix speech as “an off-script return to campaign form,” in which he “pivoted away from remarks a day earlier in which he had solemnly called for unity.”
The leak of Baker’s emails, and particularly the leak of a story draft — a significant breach for a journalist that could result in dismissal — indicates some renewed dissent in the Journal newsroom, and possible erosion of confidence in its leader.
Bill Grueskin, a former Journal deputy managing editor and a current professor at the Columbia Journalism School tweeted Wednesday: “For anyone who worked @WSJ pre-Murdoch, it’s astonishing to see staff leaking emails from the top editor. Just inconceivable.”
A Journal spokeswoman, contacted by The Washington Post on Wednesday, said in a statement: “The Wall Street Journal has a clear separation between news and opinion. As always, the key priority is to focus reporting on facts and avoid opinion seeping into news coverage.”
The Journal is not the only news organization grappling with how to report on Trump. In newsrooms across the country, conversations are taking place about the tone and language used in coverage of the president.
Baker, who became editor in chief in late 2012, came under fire earlier this month after the Journal refrained from publishing the full transcript of an interview with Trump in the Oval Office. Instead, Politico obtained a transcript and published it online in full, a move that some described as humiliating for the Journal.
As the Columbia Journalism Review noted, “It took the work of reporters from a different outlet … for the public to find out everything that was said.”
Poynter.org, a publication of the Poynter Institute for journalism education, described the interview as a “mutually flattering” back and forth between the president and Baker, in which the two discussed golf and travel. “He didn’t press him as he wandered or got facts wrong,” wrote James Warren. Though other Journal reporters were present in the July 25 interview, Baker dominated the conversation and took the lead byline on the article.
“It was a golden opportunity to reestablish the Journal’s political reporting bonafides and catch up on a story where it has fallen behind its competitors,” the Columbia Journalism Review wrote, adding: “In fact, the very leak of the transcript suggests internal turmoil over the coverage.”
The newspaper has previously faced questions about the relationship between Trump and Rupert Murdoch, who owns the Journal’s parent company, News Corp. While Murdoch has served as a Trump confidant, he has also pushed back against the president, most recently in response to Trump’s reaction to the events in Charlottesville.
Some Journal staffers at the time told CNN they thought Baker was being “deferential” to Trump “in order to maintain access to the White House and proximity to power.”
On NBC’s “Meet the Press” in early January, Baker also spoke of his reluctance to use the word “lie” when referring to false statements made by Trump. Following the appearance, he wrote an opinion article in the Journal responding to the criticism, or as he described “another fit of Trump-induced pearlclutching among the journalistic elite.”
“The word “lie” conveys a moral as well as factual judgment,” Baker wrote. “To accuse someone of lying is to impute a willful, deliberate attempt to deceive. It says he knowingly used a misrepresentation of the facts to mislead for his own purposes.”
That same month, Baker faced criticism for instructing editors to avoid referring to “seven majority-Muslim countries” in coverage of Trump’s immigration order, calling the label “loaded.”
“The reason they’ve been chosen is not because they’re majority-Muslim but because they’re on the list of countries Obama identified as countries of concern,” Baker said, BuzzFeed reported.
The effort seemed to echo a White House statement at the time that attempted to focus media coverage on an Obama administration list, rather than religion.
In a February meeting with his staff, Baker defended the paper’s coverage of Trump, and said the idea that the Journal favored the president was “fake news.” He also said that any employees looking to pursue a more adversarial approach to covering Trump should look for jobs elsewhere, NPR and Politico reported.
As NPR reported, citing interviews with about 30 Journal staffers, Baker told reporters “there was no good reason to be antagonistic to the Trump administration for the sake of it, or to declare war. Instead, he argued for the marshalling of facts and context.”
“Try to cut out some of the noise, some of the panic,” Baker told his staff, Politico reported.
After the election, Baker wrote a column for the Spectator, a British magazine, criticizing U.S. press coverage of Trump’s win.
In the column, Baker described how newsrooms had “lovingly compiled their historic ‘First Woman President’ editions,” on the night of the election.
“Like Brexit, the shock of Trump’s victory was greeted the next morning with a keening that was taken up like the call of the muezzin from the minarets of traditional and social media,” Baker wrote.
Baker later admitted to his staff he probably should have “resisted the temptation,” as The Times put it, to write the piece.
→ The Hill. 2017-08-25. Wall Street Journal reporters chided by editor for ‘selective criticism’ of Trump
Reporters at The Wall Street Journal were reportedly criticized for their coverage of President Trump’s Tuesday rally by a top editor at the outlet who asked staff to “stick to reporting” and avoid “selective criticism.”
“Sorry. This is commentary dressed up as news reporting,” editor-in-chief Gerard Baker wrote in an early Wednesday morning email to a group of Wall Street Journal editors and reporters after reading a draft of a story on Trump’s Phoenix rally.
In a follow-up email, Baker asked, “Could we please just stick to reporting what he said rather than packaging it in exegesis and selective criticism?”
The emails were reviewed by The New York Times.
In comparing the draft of the story sent to Baker and the final version that was published in the paper Wednesday, the Times found several phrases pertaining to Trump were removed.
For example, the draft read that the Charlottesville protests were “reshaping” Trump’s presidency. That mention was removed in the published version.
The draft also characterized the president’s Phoenix rally speech as “an off-script return to campaign form,” where Trump “pivoted away from remarks a day earlier in which he had solemnly called for unity.” That also doesn’t appear in the published version.
A Wall Street Journal spokeswoman pushed back in a statement to the Times on Wednesday.
“The Wall Street Journal has a clear separation between news and opinion. As always, the key priority is to focus reporting on facts and avoid opinion seeping into news coverage,” the spokeswoman said.
The Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the executive chairman of 21st Century Fox and Fox News. Murdoch reportedly speaks on a regular basis with the president and reportedly had dinner at the White House earlier this month.