Nine Wall Street Journal Op-Ed Writers Who Weren't Disclosed As Romney Advisers - MediaMatters

[WillyT]

Nine Wall Street Journal Op-Ed Writers Who Weren't Disclosed As Romney Advisers
ERIC HANANOKI - MediaMatters
SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 11:19 AM EDT

<snip>

The Wall Street Journal has published op-eds from nine writers without disclosing their roles as advisers to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. The op-eds attack President Obama and his administration or discuss Romney on a range of topics like the economy, health care, education and foreign policy.

According to a Media Matters review, the Journal published a total of 20 pieces from the following Romney advisers without disclosing their campaign ties: John Bolton; Max Boot; Lee A. Casey; Paula Dobriansky; Mary Ann Glendon; Glenn Hubbard; Paul E. Peterson; David B. Rivkin Jr.; and Martin West. In several instances, the Journal failed to disclose an op-ed writer's connection despite its own news section reporting that the writer is advising Romney.

With respect to one writer, the Journal disclosed his ties to the campaign in an initial op-ed but failed to do so in subsequent op-eds. With regard to another, the paper failed to disclose the campaign ties in an initial op-ed but did do so in later pieces. The seven remaining writers have not had their Romney connections disclosed in any of their op-eds following the publication of those ties, according to Media Matters' review.

Media Matters previously documented http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/09/14/top-mccain-lawyer-criticizes-lack-of-disclosure/189893 that the Journal regularly fails to disclose columnist Karl Rove's ties to the super PAC American Crossroads and its related organization Crossroads GPS, which are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to defeat President Obama and other Democratic candidates. The paper's lack of disclosure on Rove has drawn criticism from some of America's top editorial page editors as well as Trevor Potter, who served as general counsel to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaigns.

Fox News, which, like The Wall Street Journal, is owned by News Corp., has had similar problems...

<snip>

More: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/09/19/nine-wall-street-journal-op-ed-writers-who-were/189979

[reformist2]

1. It's sad, but the once great WSJ has been dumbed down and politicized... in a word, Foxified.

[Jackpine Radical]

6. The editorial page was always populated by flat-earth loonies, but

the paper has gone entirely down the tubes since Murdoch bought it.

[pinto]

2. Kick

Full disclosure, who needs it?

[Mnemosyne]

3. K&R

[lpbk2713]

4. Owned by NewsCorp

No further comments necessary.

[randr]

5. The Right wing is firmly establishing themselves as the

people who will lie and cheat to get their way.
Remember this in all dealing with conservatives from this moment on.

[goclark]

7. Keep kicked

Shameful

[Smickey]

8. K&R

[spanone]

9. that's what murdoch does, he poisons news.

[Indpndnt]

10. Everything he touches gets dumbed down.

[AzDar]

11. Ugh.

[xxqqqzme]

12. Full disclosure -

fact checkers. Big deal! who needs the aggravation?

[defacto7]

13. K&R

[LovingA2andMI]

14. This is a good find by Media Matters BUT...

We as the American public should blame ourselves a bit. Follow me here. Instead of following, sharing, reading and talking about the MANY alternative media resources that exist, along with SUPPORTING them monetary if necessary for them to continue their work, for the most part we CONTINUE to read, follow, view and share resources like the WALL STREET JOURNAL being the "end-all-be-all" of business news.....


With such, if WE stop consuming this propaganda information....that including buying, sharing, following...etc this crap over time, they will cease to exist. Maybe that is the lesson that should be learned by this information.... You think?

[just1voice]

16. Excellent point but many people don't get it

People could learn a lot if they read this article from the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/magazine/liberals-are-ruining-america-i-know-because-i-am-one.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www

"...The real problem is that liberals, both on an institutional and a personal level, have chosen to treat for-profit propaganda as news. In so doing, we have helped redefine liberalism as an essentially reactionary movement. Rather than initiating discussion, or advocating for more humane policy, we react to the most vile and nihilistic voices on the right.

...Media outlets like MSNBC and The Huffington Post often justify their coverage of these voices by claiming to serve as watchdogs. It would be more accurate to think of them as de facto loudspeakers for conservative agitprop. The demagogues of the world, after all, derive power solely from their ability to provoke reaction. Those liberals (like me) who take the bait, are to blame for their outsize influence."

[1-Old-Man]

17. I disagree with that assessment and officer up President Obama's campaign as evidence

I think it is essential that every attack from the right, fact based or imagined, be responded to immediately and forcefully. That is clearly the approach that President Obama's campaign has taken because if you notice they now are down to less than a 24 hour response time to virtually every Republican accusation put out in public. This is the Democrats fighting back for a change, and yes, its new, but my goodness it sure is welcome. The way I see it responding is not amplifying, and what is the alternative? No response at all?

[WillyT]

15. Kick !!!