The Wall Street Journal
| Language |
|---|
| 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York City, U.S. |
| Country |
The Wall Street Journal, also known as The Journal or WSJ, is an American business-focused, English-language international daily newspaper based in New York City, with international editions also available in Chinese and Japanese.The Journal, along with its Asian editions, is published six days a week by Dow Jones & Company, a division of News Corp. The newspaper is published in the broadsheet format and online. The Journal has been printed continuously since its inception on July 8, 1889, by Charles Dow, Edward Jones, and Charles Bergstresser.
The Wall Street Journal is one of the largest newspapers in the United States by circulation, with a circulation of about 2.834 million copies as of August 2019, compared with USA Today‘s 1.7 million. The Journal publishes the luxury news and lifestyle magazineWSJ, which was originally launched as a quarterly but expanded to 12 issues in 2014. An online version was launched in 1996, which has been accessible only to subscribers since it began.
Sen John Cornyn Lead Republican Negotiator On Bipartisan Gun Package Booed At Gop Event In Texas
Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn arrives at the Capitol Wednesday for more bipartisan talks on how to rein in gun violence.
- Print icon
- Resize icon
The lead Republican negotiator in bipartisan gun-control talks told a skeptical crowd in Texas that the framework for a potential deal was pro-Second Amendment, as negotiators headed into the weekend still hung up on a provision denying guns to people who abuse their dating partners.
Speaking over loud boos from the audience, Sen. John Cornyn ticked off gun proposals he had ruled out in the talks, such as bans on certain guns or high-capacity magazines. He recounted that he told negotiators that the goal was to better enforce existing law and keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.
I will not under any circumstance support new restrictions for law-abiding gun owners, he told state Republicans gathered in Houston. Despite what some of you may have heard, the framework that we are working on is consistent with that red line, he said.
Cornyn has been booed at conservative gatherings before, and he said in an interview earlier this month that he expected some backlash from his willingness to talk with Democrats. Still, the reception underscored the political challenges facing the delicate talks, which Democrats cast as a modest but significant effort at reining in gun violence and Republicans call an effort focused on mental health and school safety that also aims to better enforce existing laws.
Where It Leaves Staffers
Since the inauguration, the Journal has broken major stories that are damaging to Trump, on Kushners business dealings, communications between Trumps inner circle and a Russian tied to the Kremlin and special counsel Robert Muellers probe into Russian meddling in the campaign. Another on Paul Manaforts ties to a Russian oligarch got considerable buzz.
Still, the Journal is not competing with the Post and the Times for scoops and talent the way they have in earlier eras.
In November, Poynter reported that 48 Journal employees had accepted buyouts a trend seen across the media industry. In the months that followed, more staffers opted for the door. The departures include two top White House reporters, well-respected political and policy reporters, veteran foreign correspondents, and virtually the entire national security team, some of whom were poached by the Washington Post.
Recently, the Journal has made some effort to regroup after the loss of these stars, hiring a number of reporters in its Washington bureau, but not at a rate high enough to replace the talent they have lost and mainly involving more junior reporters.
The departure of Rebecca Blumenstein, the papers deputy editor-in-chief, who had been one of the few women at the Journal in a top editorial role, for the New York Times, came as a particular blow to staff, leading to a call from reporters for more diversity in the newsroom.
Don’t Miss: How Many Presidents Were Republican
In A World Of Media Bias The Wall Street Journal Seeks Objectivity
The Wall Street Journal’s VP of marketing and sales explained how the brand found its positioning during the 2016 presidential election.
To continue reading this article you need to be registered with Campaign. Registration is free and only takes a minute. Register here or sign in below if you already have an account.
Opinion Columnist Declarations The Wall Street Journal
Peggy Noonan is an opinion columnist at the Wall Street Journal where her column, “Declarations,” has run since 2000.
She was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary in 2017. A political analyst for NBC News, she is the author of nine books on American politics, history and culture, from her most recent, The Time of Our Lives, to her first, What I Saw at the Revolution. She is one of ten historians and writers who contributed essays on the American presidency for the book, Character Above All. Noonan was a special assistant and speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan. In 2010 she was given the Award for Media Excellence by the living recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor the following year she was chosen as Columnist of the Year by The Week. She has been a fellow at Harvard Universitys Institute of Politics, and has taught in the history department at Yale University.
Before entering the Reagan White House, Noonan was a producer and writer at CBS News in New York, and an adjunct professor of Journalism at New York University. She was born in Brooklyn, New York and grew up there, in Massapequa Park, Long Island, and in Rutherford, New Jersey. She is a graduate of Fairleigh Dickinson University in Rutherford. She lives in New York City. In November, 2016 she was named one of the city’s Literary Lions by the New York Public Library.
Read Also: Did Democrats And Republicans Switch Platforms
How The Journal Sees It
Defenders say Bakers approach is philosophically consistent with the papers commitment to fairness, and that it only stands out so clearly now because rivals like the New York Times and the Washington Post have become more aggressive since Trump took office. The Posts new tagline, Democracy Dies in Darkness, speaks to the urgency the papers editors see in this moment. A full-page promotional ad in last weekends Times declared, in a thinly-veiled reference to Trump: This moment in history requires an explanation.
The Times and the Post have decided were in a unique historical moment, and a different tone or stance are required, a current Journal staffer told the Guardian. The Journal is not adopting that attitude.
Baker did not respond to a request for comment, but a Journal spokesperson, Steve Severinghaus, defended the papers approach. We are covering this administration as we have all others, without bias or favor, he said.
At a time when relations between government and media are strained, the Journals singular focus on factual, unbiased coverage is essential. Our overriding obligation to be fair and objective is why the Journal is cited as the most trusted news organization in America, Severinghaus added.
Indeed, a YouGov/Economist survey this summer found the Journal to be the most trusted outlet of the American news organizations surveyed.
But the meeting did nothing to stop the normalizing of Trump at the Journal, then or in the months since.
How Factual Is Wsj
Over a dataset of 1,000 articles, WSJ scored an average Factual Grade of 64.5%. This is just above the average of 61.9% for all 240 news sources that we analyzed. This places the paper in the 59th percentile of our dataset.
Given the news agencyâs high reputation, this score may seem surprising. However, many WSJ articles fail to link to external evidence. Citing a diverse range of sources is a key part of The Factualâs algorithm, so websites that link only to internal content often score less well.
Please check your email for instructions to ensure that the newsletter arrives in your inbox tomorrow.
Like any news source, scores for articles from WSJ varied widely based on factors like author expertise and cited evidence. For example, some scored above 80%, while others scored below 50%.
Don’t Miss: My Patriot Supply Phone Number
A Broad Cultural Fear Of Change
The Journal isnt the only media organization whose leaders have been challenged by its employees. Editors at The Times, The Los Angeles Times and Condé Nast have faced tough questions from staffers on how they have handled race coverage or issues of bias or problematic editorials.
Whats unusual about the recent events at The Journal is the public nature of the grievances. The Times, by contrast, is known for how its internal spats become public.At The Journal, workplace gripes tend to stay within the family. Mostly.
The Content Review didnt pull any punches. We have a broad cultural fear of change and we overweight the possibility of alienating some readers, compared to our opportunity cost of not changing and growing, it read.
Change in any news organization is hard. When Mr. Murdoch bought the paper in 2007, the newsroom was on tenterhooks, worried he would destroy its culture. That didnt happen. Instead, he expanded its coverage to compete more directly with The Times.But over time, the paper has retrenched. Now its more of a chimera part punchy Murdoch, part old-school Journal.
Dow Jones disputed that figure, saying that the site averaged about 55 million, with a peak of 79 million last March.
Earnings filings show The Journal had 2.46 million digital-only subscribers at the end of 2020, including 106,000 who came aboard in the years final quarter.
Political Bias Of Wsj Audience
A 2014 Pew Research Center survey, Where Audiences Fit on the Political Spectrum, found the Wall Street Journal’s audience is “roughly evenly distributed across the ideological spectrum,” with 21% of consumers being mostly liberal, 24% being of mixed political persuasion, and 22% being mostly conservative.
Don’t Miss: Republicanism Definition Apush
Wall Street Journal Hits Back After Trump Claims Editorial Board Fights For ‘rinos’ And ‘globalist Policies’
Jake Dima, Breaking News Reporter |
The Wall Street Journalshot back at former President Donald Trump for a statement in which he chastised its editorial board over a column critiquing his CPAC speech and suggesting that he is losing power in the Republican Party.
The response from the newspaper on Thursday came shortly after Trump questioned whether the Wall Street Journal‘s typically conservative opinion side has any remaining influence.
The Wall Street Journal editorial page continues, knowingly, to fight for globalist policies such as bad trade deals, open borders, and endless wars that favor other countries and sell out our great American workers, and they fight for RINOS that have so badly hurt the Republican Party, Trump said. Thats where they are, and thats where they will always be. Fortunately, nobody cares much about the Wall Street Journal editorial anymore.
The Wall Street Journal clapped back by blaming Trump for how the Republican Party lost both the House and Senate to Democrats during his administration. The editorial board also quipped, “For someone who says we dont matter, sure spends a lot of time reading and responding to us.”
TRUMP ALLIES PITCHED HUNTER BIDEN CORRUPTION STORY TO WALL STREET JOURNAL: REPORT
The editorial board also narrowed its focus on how Republicans lost two U.S. Senate seats in a January special election, resulting in a 50-50 control makeup in the Senate with Vice President Kamala Harris as the tiebreaking vote.
The Wall Street Journal Ridicules Trump In Public Feud After The Paper Questioned His Usefulness To The Republican Party
-
The Wall Street Journal and Trump are feuding after the paper ridiculed him for his election loss.
-
The paper published an article that questioned Trump’s usefulness to the Republican Party.
-
Trump responded by saying the paper, backed by Rupert Murdoch, has “lost great credibility.”
Donald Trump and the Rupert Murdoch-backed Wall Street Journal are going head to head after the newspaper ridiculed the former president for being in denial about his election loss.
The paper, which has a largely right-leaning editorial board, earlier this week questioning Trump’s usefulness to the Republican Party after losing the White House and the Republican control of Congress.
In a scathing response released on Thursday, Trump accused the paper of supporting “globalist policies such as bad trade deals, open borders, and endless wars that favor other countries and sell out our great American workers,”according to The Hill.
“They fight for RINOS that have so badly hurt the Republican Party,” Trump added. “That’s where they are and that’s where they will always be. Fortunately, nobody cares much about The Wall Street Journal editorial anymore. They have lost great credibility.”
The editorial board fired back shortly after, writing in another article that read: “For someone who says we don’t matter, he sure spends a lot of time reading and responding to us. Thanks for the attention.”
Read the original article on Business Insider
Read Also: Did Trump Say Republicans Were Stupid
The Newspapers Own Reporters Are Challenging The Trumpian Opinion Section
Donald Trump holds up The Wall Street Journal as he speaks at the daily coronavirus briefing at the White House on April 19, 2020.
Subscribe to The Nation
Get The Nations Weekly Newsletter
Fridays
By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nations journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
The Nation
Join the Books & the Arts Newsletter
MondaysThe Nation
By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nations journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
The Nation
Subscribe to The Nation
Support Progressive Journalism
The Nation
Sign up for our Wine Club today.
The Nation
In 1981, Ben Bagdikian, a veteran journalist and former dean of the University of California, Berkeley, journalism school, tried to explain why The Wall Street Journal published an opinion section dominated by an almost lunatic fringe. Executives and stockholders really do want to know the unpleasant truth about corporate life when it affects their careers or incomes. At the same time, however, most of them are true believers in the rhetoric of free enterprise,he noted. Therefore, by singing the grand old hymns of unfettered laissez-faire on the editorial pages while reporting the truth in its news pages, the Journal has it both ways.
For Reprints and Permissions, click here.
Why The Wall Street Journal Is Wrong About The 2020 Election
The problem is not mass voter fraud, but a privately funded shadow campaign for Joe Biden within the formal structure of the election system.
A Wall Street Journal editorial appeared on Tuesday entitled, The Best Summary of the 2020 Election: Rules were bent, GOP voters defected, and real fraud hasnt turned up. This conveys the position of many establishment conservatives concerning the 2020 election: There were some slight problems with the election that were overshadowed by normal political phenomena such as controversies about Donald Trump and GOP voters switching sides.
The Wall Street Journal begins with the expected anti-Trump admonishment: At his first big political rally of 2022, President Trump was again focused on 2020. We had a rigged election, and the proof is all over the place, said. But Mr. Trump was apparently too busy over Christmas to read a 136-page report by a conservative group in Wisconsin, whose review shows no evidence of widespread voter fraud.
This is a lengthy report into allegations of literal voter fraud by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty , for which they find little corroboration. But there is another side of the argument regarding the legitimacy of the 2020 election that The Wall Street Journal has relentlessly ignored.
Recommended Reading: When Did Democratic Party Switch Ideologies
If Republican Leaders Were To Participate In This Political Stunt It Would Change The House Forever
A large group of police arrive at the Capitol, Jan. 6.
While Americans are struggling to put gas in the tank and food on the table, Democrats are busy weaponizing government to attack Republicans. Look no further than the Jan. 6 Select Committee investigation.
Democrats created the Select Committee last year and packed it with partisans. SpeakerNancy Pelosi rejected Republicans chosen members, violating more than 232 years of House precedent, and also declined to appoint the required 13 members. These actions deprive the committee of balance and objectivity and raise questions about its legitimacy.
True to form, the Select Committees statements and actions have shown that it isnt interested in a fair investigation. Democrats prejudged the outcome last year, declaring in their impeachment brief that President Trump was unmistakably responsible for the events of Jan. 6, 2021. Democrats have also accused their Republican colleagues of sedition and called us traitors.
With no effective check on its power, the Select Committee is trampling on fundamental Constitutional rights. It is investigating the political speech of private citizens and demanding access to their personal records and private communications. When disputes over the requests arise, the committee refuses to engage and seeks to punish. There is no presumption of innocence instead Chairman Bennie Thompson declared citizens who invoke the Fifth Amendment are part and parcel guilty to what occurred.
