Russia. Riaperto il laboratorio per armi artiche. Il monito del WSJ che nessuno udrà. Leggetemi.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-12-31.

Chiunque avesse conosciuto di persona la Russia passata e quella attuale non potrebbe fare altro che concordare con quanto scritto dal US Department of Defense.

Russian Strategic Intentions. A Strategic Multilayer Assessment (SMA) White Paper.

«The post-Cold War picture of Russia as weak and declining is outdated. Today’s Russia is formidable in cyberspace and a resurgent global power, from Crimea to Syria to the Arctic and beyond.»

*

Questo il commento di Reuters.

«President Vladimir Putin has touted the Arctic as a vital region for Russian interests as climate change makes it more accessible, presiding over a buildup of military infrastructure and pushing to increase cargo volumes shipped via the Northern Sea Route across its northern flank.

The Central Scientific-Research Institute for Precision Machine Engineering, that makes weapons for Russia’s military, said it had restored testing chambers to simulate extreme conditions. The chambers were closed after the Soviet breakup in 1991.

The facility can now test-fire small arms as well as special grenade launchers and small-cannon armaments at temperatures of between minus 60 and plus 60 degrees Celsius»

* * * * * * *

Ma ciò che desta la maggiore sorpresa è l’editoriale del The Wall Street Journal, tempio della cultura liberal socialista.

«The U.S. should stop underestimating russian power»

«In recent days, Americans have learned that Russia’s equivalent to the CIA almost certainly executed the most devastating cyber-offensive in history»

«the attack fits neatly into a narrative that we have heard from pundits and policy makers for years: that Vladimir Putin has a weak hand in international politics—a wobbly economy, a relatively small military, stagnant population growth—but plays it well»

«this bit of conventional wisdom is that it seriously underestimates the value of the cards in Mr. Putin’s hand»

«Russia isn’t just formidable in cyberspace. It is globally resurgent in ways that we can’t afford to dismiss»

«As Mr. Putin put it two decades ago (attributing the quote to Winston Churchill), “Russia was never so strong as it wants to be and never so weak as it is thought to be.”»

«The post-Cold War picture of Russia as weak and declining is outdated»

«Russia still supplies much of the world with oil and gas—resources on which the global economy depends. But Russia does more than just mine, refine and sell petroleum; it also controls much of the world’s oil and gas pipeline infrastructure»

«That gives Mr. Putin the kind of leverage and influence over a host of countries (including most of Europe) that doesn’t show up in measures of relative power such as GDP. ….»

* * * * * * * * * * *

Le avversità hanno fatto riemergere il retaggio russo come ofioliti: religione, storia, concezione sociale e nuova visione economica. La Russia si è compattata. Con 4,349 miliardi Usd equivalenti occupa il sesto posto nella graduatoria mondiale ppa dell’IMF. Ma il potere economico è solo un aspetto della sua ferrea volontà di emergere alle vette.

A Mr Putin è sempre venuto più che bene che l’occidente ed i suoi media lo sottovalutassero, denigrandolo e coprendolo di ogni sorta di menzogne. Non a caso le ha generosamente finanziate.

Più gli avversari sottovalutano e meglio si può agire.

E l’immagine di una Russia «a wobbly economy, a relatively small military, stagnant population growth» è destinata a restare a lungo nell’immaginario collettivo dei popoli occidentali, con grande gioia di Mr Putin.

*

---

WSJ. The U.S. Should Stop Underestimating Russian Power

Vladimir Putin deploys capabilities and resources that have made his country a resurgent global player.

In recent days, Americans have learned that Russia’s equivalent to the CIA almost certainly executed the most devastating cyber-offensive in history. Over many months, the perpetrators planted malware in data systems throughout the U.S. government and Fortune 500 companies. Among the U.S. government agencies that the Russian security services appear to have infiltrated are the Departments of State, Treasury, Energy and Homeland Security, as well as the National Institutes of Health at the height of a deadly pandemic.

The full extent of the damage may not be known for years, but the attack fits neatly into a narrative that we have heard from pundits and policy makers for years: that Vladimir Putin has a weak hand in international politics—a wobbly economy, a relatively small military, stagnant population growth—but plays it well. Russia, in short, is a troublemaker but not a major threat.

The problem with this bit of conventional wisdom is that it seriously underestimates the value of the cards in Mr. Putin’s hand. Russia isn’t just formidable in cyberspace. It is globally resurgent in ways that we can’t afford to dismiss, from Crimea to Syria to sub-Saharan Africa, Venezuela, the Arctic, Europe and beyond. A proper assessment of Russian power means looking beyond traditional yardsticks such as GDP or military spending. As Mr. Putin put it two decades ago (attributing the quote to Winston Churchill), “Russia was never so strong as it wants to be and never so weak as it is thought to be.”

The post-Cold War picture of Russia as weak and declining is outdated. Russia has come a long way from the decrepit, indebted and lawless country that emerged after the Soviet collapse in 1991, a nation that the late Sen. John McCain described in 2014 as “a gas station masquerading as a country.”

Russia still supplies much of the world with oil and gas—resources on which the global economy depends. But Russia does more than just mine, refine and sell petroleum; it also controls much of the world’s oil and gas pipeline infrastructure. That gives Mr. Putin the kind of leverage and influence over a host of countries (including most of Europe) that doesn’t show up in measures of relative power such as GDP. ….

*

---

Russia Reopens Soviet-Era Lab To Develop Weapons For Arctic Sub-Zero Conditions

Russia is believed to be greatly expanding and beefing up its ability to wage warfare in extreme cold and icy conditions after it was announced Thursday that a Soviet-era laboratory has been reconstituted and newly opened in order to test weapons in Arctic weather.

“The Central Scientific-Research Institute for Precision Machine Engineering, that makes weapons for Russia’s military, said it had restored testing chambers to simulate extreme conditions,” Reuters reports of the facility which was shut down since the the end of the Soviet Union in 1991. 

The Institute issued a press release saying “the certification is the final step towards restoring this unique technological capability that had been lost after the fall of the USSR.” The complex’s test chambers will actually be able to simulate a variety of conditions to also include extreme heat as well as wet weather.

Russian media cited a senior technician, Sergei Karasev, as detailing further:

He said the test site will begin work on a number of weapons, including rifles, specially-made grenade launchers and small caliber cannons in “extreme temperatures” as low as minus 60 degrees.

The conditions are designed to mimic environments like the Arctic, but the facility will also recreate a number of other potential battlefields. Tests to see whether weapons can withstand tropical climes will be carried out in a combined heat and rain chamber, while a dust chamber mimics the pressures that deserts exert on firing mechanisms.

Typically when temperatures reach such extremes as minus 60 degrees Celsius, cars and machinery break down unless they are specially outfitted to operate in the extreme cold. 

Without extensive protections even a person’s face can become frostbitten in just minutes after being exposed to such temperatures. 

In remote locations like Russia’s Sakha Republic (Yakutia) for example, schools, colleges and public places will only stay open until temperatures as low as -52°C, but upon reaching that limit will shut down for safety reasons.

Much standard military equipment would also not work properly in these conditions, hence Russia’s focus on developing and testing weapons that are optimal in Arctic conditions. The plan is to also simulate how battlefield tactics would change in extreme and varied conditions.

Cina espelle giornalisti americani.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-03-22.

«Tutti hanno diritto di manifestare liberamente il proprio pensiero con la parola, lo scritto e ogni altro mezzo di diffusione …. Si puo` procedere a sequestro soltanto per atto motivato dell’autorita` giudiziaria»

Così recita l’art. 21 della Costituzione, e questo concetto è ubiquitario nel mondo occidentale.

Occorre però fare alcune precisazioni.

La prima, e fondamentale, consiste nel fatto che il termine ‘libertà’ non corrisponde in nulla a quello di ‘licenza’, di cui  l’esatto contrario. A ciò consegue come non sia lecito manifestare ‘qualsivoglia’ pensiero: l’esternazione è lecita nei limiti posti dalla propria ed altrui libertà. In effetti, è un problema etico.

La seconda consiste invece nel fatto che ogni stato ha le sue proprie leggi e sistemi giurisprudenziali, il rispetto delle quali è doveroso oltre che imposto per legge. A seconda quindi del luogo di pubblicazione uno scritto può o meno essere lecito. Ma uno scritto lecito in una nazione potrebbe irritarne un’altra.

La terza verte il caso particolare dei media a risonanza mondiale. Ancorché pubblicati in un ben determinato stato, la loro diffusione internazionale ne suggerirebbe l’uso con una ben studiata prudenza espressiva, troppo spesso assente nei media a larga diffusione.

* * * * * * *

In occidente, per decenni dominato dall’ideologia liberal, la stampa è diventata il mezzo espressivo di tale modo di concepire la vita e la società: nella realtà dei fatti si è tramutata in una potente arma di propaganda politica. In nome della ‘libertà di stampa’ si è concessa ai giornalisti, professione non elettiva, di surrogare virtualmente un’autorità politica che loro non compete. È, per esempio, licenza e non certo libertà è la diffusione pubblica di documenti soggetti a segreto di stato. Il problema si configura quindi nel fatto che l’appoggio politico costituisca una sorta di licenza ad omnia: va da sé che, cessata la manleva politica, il quadro deve tornare alla norma.

Nei confronti della Cina, da decenni la stampa ha ripreso la politica liberal democratica che da continui articoli anche violentemente critici sono alla fine sfociati in strumento di istigazione separatista di Hong Kong, concorrendo a formarne ribellioni e sommosse. La qual cosa è inaccettabile per la Cina.

«Beijing announced on Wednesday what it said was retaliation against U.S. restrictions on Chinese journalists that includes revoking the accreditations of American correspondents with the New York Times, News Corp’s Wall Street Journal and Washington Post whose credentials expire by the end of 2020»

«Beijing then expelled three Wall Street Journal correspondents – two Americans and an Australian – following an opinion column by the newspaper that called China the “real sick man of Asia.”»

«Beijing said the expelled journalists would not be permitted to work in mainland China, Hong Kong or Macau. It said they must hand back their press cards within 10 days»

«The expulsion is expected to affect at least 13 journalists»

«The move is a sharp escalation of a dispute that saw Washington last month force Chinese state media firms to register as foreign embassies»

* * * * * * *

I media liberal dovrebbero prendere atto che è finito il tempo in cui potevano fare la morale alla Cina, nella presunzione di poterle imporre la propria Weltanschauung, che la Cina rigetta in toto.

Che poi la Cina sia il “real sick man of Asia” è tutto da verificarsi. Per il momento almeno essa è riuscita a contenere l’epidemia da coronavirus, mentre l’occidente è appena agli inizi della lotta all’epidemia, che sta bloccandolo negli spostamenti e nella produzione. Sarà facile per la Cina occupare un ruolo leader de facto.

*

---

China expels American journalists as spat with U.S. escalates.

China is withdrawing the press credentials of American journalists at three U.S. newspapers, intensifying a bitter fight between the world’s top two economies that has widened to include the coronavirus outbreak and media freedoms.

Beijing announced on Wednesday what it said was retaliation against U.S. restrictions on Chinese journalists that includes revoking the accreditations of American correspondents with the New York Times (NYT.N), News Corp’s (NWSA.O) Wall Street Journal and Washington Post whose credentials expire by the end of 2020.

The move is a sharp escalation of a dispute that saw Washington last month force Chinese state media firms to register as foreign embassies.

Beijing then expelled three Wall Street Journal correspondents – two Americans and an Australian – following an opinion column by the newspaper that called China the “real sick man of Asia.”

Washington then slashed the number of journalists permitted to work in the United States at four major Chinese state-owned media outlets to 100, from 160 previously. It cited a “deepening crackdown” on independent reporting inside China.

Beijing said the expelled journalists would not be permitted to work in mainland China, Hong Kong or Macau. It said they must hand back their press cards within 10 days.

The expulsion is expected to affect at least 13 journalists, according to the Foreign Correspondents Club of China, which said it “deplores” China’s decision.

China’s foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a faxed request for comment on how many journalists are affected.

Beijing also said the China branches of the three papers plus the Voice of America broadcaster and Time magazine must “declare in written form information about their staff, finance, operation and real estate in China.”

WAR OF WORDS

The latest development follows a war of words between Washington and Beijing over the outbreak of the new coronavirus, which causes a highly contagious, sometimes fatal, respiratory illness COVID-19.

The virus originated in the Chinese city of Wuhan late last year and has so far killed 7,400 people globally, bringing normal life in many parts of the world to a standstill.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters at a State Department news conference that Beijing’s move on Wednesday would deprive the world and the Chinese people of information in “incredibly challenging” times brought about by the coronavirus.

“I regret China’s decision today to further foreclose the world’s ability to conduct the free press operations that frankly would be really good for the Chinese people,” he said. “This is unfortunate… I hope they’ll reconsider.”

Media executives denounced the move.

“We unequivocally condemn any action by China to expel U.S. reporters,” Washington Post Executive Editor Marty Baron said in a statement. “The Chinese government’s decision is particularly regrettable because it comes in the midst of an unprecedented global crisis, when clear and reliable information about the international response to COVID-19 is essential.”

Dean Baquet, executive editor at The New York Times, also condemned the decision.

“It is a grave mistake for China to move backwards and cut itself off from several of the world’s top news organizations,” he said.

Matt Murray, editor in chief at The Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones Newswires, said: “We oppose government interference with a free press anywhere in the world. Our commitment to reporting fully and deeply on China is unchanged.”

Time Editor in Chief and CEO Edward Felsenthal said: “We oppose any effort by the Chinese government or any other government to expel reporters or intimidate those whose job is to provide accurate information, especially during this crucial period for the world.”

A representative of Voice of America was not immediately reachable.

‘ONE COUNTRY, TWO SYSTEMS’

A striking aspect of Beijing’s move was its decision to bar the journalists from working in Hong Kong and Macau, two semi-autonomous territories of China with their own media accreditation rules. In the past, foreign journalists kicked out of China were allowed to work in Hong Kong.

That raised questions about Hong Kong’s autonomy under the “one country, two systems” agreement that still prevails between the territory and the mainland.

“There’s no precedent for China dictating who can and can’t report from Hong Kong openly,” said Steven Butler, the Committee to Protect Journalists’ Asia program coordinator. “It very seriously erodes Hong Kong’s autonomy and freedom of the press.”

The Foreign Correspondents’ Club in Hong Kong said it was alarmed at the decision to expel the journalists and even more concerned that they would be banned from working as journalists in Hong Kong.

It said Hong Kong must provide assurances that foreign journalists working in Hong Kong and those applying to work in the city will continue to be issued employment visas without interference from the Chinese government.

Beijing said on Wednesday that its actions “are entirely necessary and reciprocal countermeasures that China is compelled to take in response to the unreasonable oppression the Chinese media organizations experience in the United States.”

Pompeo said he did not think Beijing’s latest move was a balanced response. “This isn’t apples to apples,” he said, charging that the Chinese journalists who had faced restrictions were part of “propaganda outlets.”

China has repeatedly denounced the Wall Street Journal’s “sick man” column as racist and, after the newspaper declined to apologize, revoked the visas of the three reporters in Beijing. Another reporter with the paper had to leave last year after China declined to renew his visa.

Wall Street Journal. Proprietà (Murdoch) contro i giornalisti.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-08-27.

«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?»

* * * * * * * *

Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch: inside the billionaire bromance

Rupert Murdoch and President Trump met after Scaramucci exit

Rupert Murdoch’s papers criticize Trump; is the mogul sending a message?

Murdoch And Trump, An Alliance Of Mutual Interest

«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.

Già.

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.

Nota.

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.

Related: Bannon vs. Murdoch, Breitbart vs. WSJ: The proxy war over Trump

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.