When it comes to the mainstream media, it’s become increasingly impossible to find fair coverage of President Trump. With so -called reputable outlets like CNN and the New York Times abandoning all objectivity, there aren’t many places to look anymore. Sadly, true objective journalism may be on the endangered species list.
Thankfully, there are still a few exceptions to the new rule. The Wall Street Journal, which many consider a center-right publication, has been providing very balanced coverage of the Trump administration.
However, many Wall Street Journal reporters aren’t satisfied with that, and have sought to take a more confrontational approach to President Trump. The editor in chief of the paper says not so fast there, buckaroos.
From the Daily Signal:
Wall Street Journal Editor-in-Chief Gerard Baker told his reporters Monday the paper would not abandon objectivity in its coverage of President Donald Trump, and directed them to find work somewhere else if they want to adopt a more oppositional tone.
“It’s a little irritating when I read that we have been soft on Donald Trump,” he told his reporters and editors, a source at the newsroom meeting told The New York Times. Baker held the meeting ostensibly to have a casual conversation on the editorial direction of the paper, but it was held on the heels of reports the newsroom is in turmoil over the Trump coverage.
Of course, many of journalists aren’t satisfied with giving President Trump a fair shake:
The Trump coverage is “neutral to the point of being absurd,” one source inside the newsroom recently told Politico. Criticism peaked when Baker sent a memo to staff instructing reporters and editors to tone down the use of “loaded” language in coverage of Trump’s immigration ban.
Perhaps surprisingly, editor Gerard Baker shows no signs of backing down:
Baker strongly defended his paper’s coverage as objective in the meeting, going so far as to read from a list of past Wall Street Journal headlines compiled to refute the criticism. He suggested it is other outlets such as The New York Times that have abandoned fair reporting standards and objectivity—not The Wall Street Journal—and that those standards aren’t going anywhere.
Reporters who don’t like that, he said, might want to find work somewhere else.
In an era where unfair coverage is the norm, it is refreshing to see a paper stand by its values to provide objective coverage. Baker’s defense of his paper’s standards should serve as an example of integrity to publications that bend to pressure and mislead the public.
The Wall Street Journal has sent a clear message to its reporters; if you want to be like the New York Times, go work for them. For now, the Wall Street Journal is committed to true journalism.
[Note: This post was authored by Michael Lee. Follow him on Twitter @UAMichaelLee]