While national media are falling all over each other to portray the Trump Administration as inept, corrupt or downright evil, one major national newspaper is trying to put a stop to it.
The Wall Street Journal Editor Gerald Baker told reporters that they plan to cover President Donald Trump fairly and objectively. And any reporter who doesn’t agree with that should get a job somewhere else.
He made his comments at a “town hall” style meeting with the editorial staff, facing criticism that the paper has been too soft in it’s coverage of the Trump Administration.
On the contrary, Baker said other newspapers like the New York Times had discarded objectivity, but that the WSJ will not. “It’s a little irritating when I read that we have been soft on Donald Trump, he said, the New York Times reports.
Baker addressed the concern some reporters had that they were being held back on aggressively covering Trump, and that Baker, personally is playing a role in shaping more favorable coverage.
Baker had a different take: The Trump Administration has declared war on the media and the WSJ should not be a part of it.
“We can’t allow ourselves to be dragged into the political process, to be a protagonist in the political fight,” he said, according to one of the people. He said that Americans already distrusted the news media, and that if The Journal covered Mr. Trump in an overly confrontational way, that distrust might increase.
The newsroom had been upset for a while about what they saw about soft coverage of Trump, but it got heated after Baker sent a memo to the staff telling them to stop calling the countries listed on Trump’s travel ban as “Muslim-Majority” countries.
“It’s very loaded,” Mr. Baker wrote at the time. “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.”
Some journalists have openly criticized the idea of treating Trump like any other president – or politician. You shouldn’t be objective, they argue, when faced with something, or someone, as “dangerous” as Donald Trump.
“If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that,” Jim Rutenberg wrote in The New York Times. “You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.”
H/T: The Daily Caller