HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Wall Street Journal accus...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 07:36 PM

 

Wall Street Journal accused of concealing writers’ Mitt Romney links

Source: Raw Story


Veteran journalists attack Murdoch paper for failure to disclose writers’ political sympathies

The Wall Street Journal has been criticised by senior US journalists for failing to disclose that 10 of its op-ed writers are Mitt Romney advisers.

According to an inquiry by Media Matters, 23 pieces in the WSJ’s op-ed pages attacked President Obama or praised Romney without the writers acknowledging their political connections to Romney.

Max Frankel, a former New York Times executive editor, called the lack of disclosure “shameless.” He added: “They ought to put a banner saying Romney has approved of this page… It looks like the Wall Street Journal editorial and op ed pages have enlisted in the campaign. They should be disclosing that.”

“Not disclosing is inexcusable,” declared Stephen Henderson, editorial page editor of the Detroit Free Press. “It is important to disclose that so that the reader can evaluate the argument intelligently,” said Nicholas Goldberg, Los Angeles Times editorial page editor, adding that transparency is “absolutely essential.”

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/28/wall-street-journal-accused-of-concealing-writers-mitt-romney-links/?fb_action_ids=499293230081871%2C499292923415235&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map={%22499293230081871%22%3A178061685664702%2C%22499292923415235%22%3A439607322747492}&action_type_map={%22499293230081871%22%3A%22og.recommends%22%2C%22499292923415235%22%3A%22og.recommends%22}&action_ref_map=[]

20 replies, 5861 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 20 replies Author Time Post
Reply Wall Street Journal accused of concealing writers’ Mitt Romney links (Original post)
Bennyboy Sep 2012 OP
Cha Sep 2012 #1
olegramps Sep 2012 #11
DFW Sep 2012 #2
fasttense Sep 2012 #9
LiberalLovinLug Sep 2012 #15
fasttense Sep 2012 #20
cprise Sep 2012 #16
itssimplestupid Sep 2012 #3
eyewall Sep 2012 #4
Canuckistanian Sep 2012 #5
mwooldri Sep 2012 #6
Uncle Joe Sep 2012 #7
KoKo Sep 2012 #8
fasttense Sep 2012 #10
Mr. Sparkle Sep 2012 #12
the_chinuk Sep 2012 #13
Dustlawyer Sep 2012 #14
patrice Sep 2012 #17
stevend56 Sep 2012 #18
benld74 Sep 2012 #19

Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 08:21 PM

1. Good! Thanks Bennyboy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:01 AM

11. That's the Wall Street Urinal, not Journal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 08:29 PM

2. This is a logical progression

With Fox Noise, Murdoch has, in effect, made a yearly billion dollar contribution to the Republican Party (move over, Sheldon Adelson), and even makes a profit in the process. Many of its commentators are openly Republican operatives (and the rest are nearly out int the open). It's only natural that Murdoch's print media should act in the same manner. Journalism has nothing to do with this. It is a case of deliberately deceptive advertising. Fox is not news, and the WSJ is less and less of a newspaper.

Even the wily Lenin practiced less deceptive advertising. In the Soviet era, "Pravda" proclaimed itself an "Organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union" right there on the front page of every issue. Murdoch's American media, especially Fox and the WSJ, are organs of the Republican Party, but claim an independence they don't even try to feign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 06:49 AM

9. Just think of how much Murdoch could have made if he did real news. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fasttense (Reply #9)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 03:19 PM

15. Not half as much

There's the rub

Much more to be made by inventing boogeymen, hiring sexy bimbos to deliver the BS, dramatic graphics animations, and hype the fear factor and imploring the viewers to continue to watch because they won't hear about all these "threats" on the other networks. This is true of course because there are no actual threats (of a communist, Muslim, gay, feminist..etc., takeover of the country). Murdoch has discovered a weakness in the American psyche, which is not as relevant in his home country of Australia, for being able to scare easily. Maybe its conditioning from movies, glorification of the military and its influence, ....who knows. But he's milking it for all he can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalLovinLug (Reply #15)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 01:27 PM

20. A lot of that has nothing to do with the news content

but more to do with format and style. You can still have that format and style and still do real news. I bet it would have been even more popular than what fox does now because it would have gotten both liberals and conservatives to watch.

I use to watch fox when I thought it was a real news organization. Then I learned they were merely the propaganda tool of the RepubliCON party and stopped watching.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 05:07 PM

16. You got it backwards, though

The mass media outlets and the two major political parties are organs of the corporate establishment, esp. Wall St. banks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 08:30 PM

3. It's Not Like Fox Lies Says

They are the Republican Party's propaganda machine. Why should Murdoch's bs machine be any different.

http://www.RepublicansAreADisease.com

The stench of Murdoch is almost as bad as the stench of Romney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 08:46 PM

4. Phony journalism that defiles the ethics of the trade.

I remember a speech by GW Bush that Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer compared, on Fox News, to a speech by JFK. They were actually pontificating about the similarities to one of Kennedy's famous speeches. They neglected to mention that the two of them were the authors of Dubya's speech (which wasn't that good anyway).

“Not disclosing is inexcusable,” declared Stephen Henderson

and disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 08:51 PM

5. Whaaaa?

The WSJ editorial board accused of undisclosed partisan op-eds??

Say it ain't so!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:10 PM

6. They don't call it the Wall Street Journal ® for nothing...

With ® being for Republican.

I expect newspapers to be biased.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:25 PM

7. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Bennyboy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:38 PM

8. They were ruled by Conservatives on "OpEd" page even before Murdoch took over...

but since then their pages don't even bother to conceal their RW & Corporatist slant... More than Slant.... PROPAGANDA put out by Wall Street and Think Tanks that are a funnel mouthpiece.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 06:50 AM

10. They have earned their nick name the Wall Street Urinal. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 12:08 PM

12. Rupert Murdochs war on journalism.

He does not believe in journalism, just press releases that furthers his business interests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 12:33 PM

13. Of course and then again, if you assumed otherwise, you have your head so far up your ass …

… that you qualify as an anaerobic organism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 01:35 PM

14. 90% of all media owned by 6 corporations! This is what you get. What happened to equal

time? Right now, BP has a lock on all media stories coming out of the Gulf of Mexico. Their lies get through, but the victim's stories do not! America has past what Pravda used to do for the Soviet Union. Our media represents what Money wants it to represent. The Repugs always claim the opposite of reality such as the "Clear Skies" legislation to allow corporations to pollute more. Here we have the "liberal media bias!" They have had the media in their pocket for some time now. Reporters know what they can write about and what they can't, and if they do, they can kiss their advancement or their job goodbye. We need to bust up these big media conglomerates and divide news from entertainment. Fox news won an appeal from a libel/slander suit in Florida on the basis that it is ok to lie b/c it is entertainment. It is ok to lie! We need to take back our media from the clutches of these conglomerates who, like General Electric, have many business interests that they further through their own network. Is it right to have a network owned by a corporation who stands to make trillions through the military and the wars we undertake? Do we trust GE not to slant things towards war when the war will make them so much money? That is way too big of a conflict of interest! No wonder we have been at war longer than ever before. Why does one party want to approve a military budget that provides for much more money than the Pentagon even asks for, while cutting programs for the sick, poor, and Veterans?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:17 PM

17. Surprise, surprise from one of the biggest cheerleaders for the invasion & occupation of Iraq that

was out there publishing during the months preceding Shock and Awe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:34 PM

18. Caught...

The WSJ editorial page has been notorious for misleading and misinforming their readers ever since Murdoch bought them. Everybody knows that they are a Republican party megaphone. The fact that they failed to disclose their relationships just highlights their motivation, which is to deceive. I can respect people who have an opinion different than mine. However if you try to paint your opinion as unbiased or "Fair and Balanced"...well then I know that you are just a propagandist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Original post)

Sun Sep 30, 2012, 12:20 AM

19. They're worse than bottom feeders, at least bottom feeders have a purpose in life!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread