Newspaper logo  
 
 
Local Gov’t Stories, Events

08.15 RIDE FOR THE OVERRIDE

Ref. : Civic Events

Ref. : Arts & Education Events

Ref. : Public Service Notices

Travel
Books, Films, Arts & Education

12.08 How Do American Students Compare to Their International Peers?

12.07 What America Can Learn About Smart Schools in Other Countries

Letters

Ref. : Letters to the editor

Health Care & Environment

12.08 Portland's Answer to Climate Denial? Local Action

12.08 Meet the High-Tech Buses of Tomorrow [perhaps smaller, non-polluting buses can come twice as often, too]

12.08 Mapping the Inundation of New York City

12.08 Leonardo DiCaprio meets Trump as climate sceptic appointed

12.08 Trump picks climate change sceptic Scott Pruitt to lead EPA

12.07 Trump’s Infrastructure Plan Is a Full-on Privatization Assault

12.07 Trump advisors aim to privatize oil-rich Indian reservations [drill, pump, burn, breathe, die]

12.07 Thousands of snow geese die in Montana after landing on contaminated water

12.07 Five west African countries ban 'dirty diesel' from Europe

12.07 London mayor to double funding to tackle air pollution

12.07 Donald Trump supports 'clean coal' – but does it really have a future?

12.07 Google, Apple, Facebook race towards 100% renewable energy target

12.07 Google Says It Will Run Entirely on Renewable Energy in 2017

12.05 Trump's pick for key health post known for punitive Medicaid plan

12.05 Asleep at the Wheel: German Leaders at Odds with Industry over Electric Cars

12.05 Dakota Access Pipeline Permit Denied

News Media Matters

Daily: FAIR Blog
The Daily Howler

US Politics, Policy & 'Culture'

12.07 Democrats Need to Embrace Progressivism or Else Move Out of the Way

12.07 Forget Air Force One, Pentagon Wastes Billions and Billions Every Month

12.06 Why Does Donald Trump Lie About Voter Fraud?

12.06 FIGHTING FOR THE POOR UNDER TRUMP

12.06 Want to Bring Back Jobs, Mr. President-Elect? Call Elon Musk [dare to be smart]

12.06 Jamie Raskin Has a Fierce, Funny Message for Dispirited Democrats

12.06 Career of Trump's Top Ethics Lawyer Marred by Questionable Ethics

Justice Matters

12.07 President Obama’s Last Chance to Show Mercy

12.06 Did Trump’s Son-In-Law Finance Israeli Extremists and Illegal Settlements?

High Crimes?

12.05 Sea Shepherd activists set sail for Antarctic to battle Japanese whalers

Economics, Crony Capitalism

12.08 Who Won the 'Make the Most Meaningless Thomas Friedman Graph' Contest? [humor with graphs, because we need some!]

12.08 In the UK, Pfizer and a partner hiked anti-epilepsy drug price 2600% overnight [bring out the guillotine]

12.08 “We’ll Look at Everything”: More Thoughts on Trump’s $1 Trillion Infrastructure Plan

12.04 TRUMP SETS PRIVATE PRISONS FREE

12.04 WHY TRUMP SHOULD SPEND OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY

International

12.08 After Choi-gate

12.08 France's honest tax system crusader convicted for hiding millions of euros

12.06 FAIR’s big play: Onetime fringe group hopes to drive Donald Trump’s immigration policy

12.06 Brazil's Senate president ousted over embezzlement charges

12.06 Brazil grapples with lynch mob epidemic: 'A good criminal is a dead criminal'

12.06 Before the article 50 court battle, there was May v Merkel

12.06 Austrians celebrate far right defeat: 'the first good election result this year'

12.05 Euro falls to 20-month low after Italy government's referendum defeat

12.05 'A storm is gathering on the horizon': Chinese scholars fret about Trump

We are a non-profit Internet-only newspaper publication founded in 1973. Your donation is essential to our survival.

You can also mail a check to:
Baltimore News Network, Inc.
P.O. Box 42581
Baltimore, MD 21284-2581
Google
This site Web
  Print view: Why We Can't Trust the WSJ's ''Opinion'' Section
MEDIA CRITICISM:

Why We Can't Trust the WSJ's "Opinion" Section

The Wall Street Journal's failure to edit Karl Rove's misleading column on taxes is a case in point.

by Alice Cherbonnier
Sunday, 5 December 2010
Does the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics' first principle, that "deliberate distortion is never permissible," apply to writers, but not editors?

Where can the public turn today for accurate reporting? It used to be said that the Wall Street Journal's news reporting was impeccable because the power elite who read it would never forgive it for providing false information. Even those not among that exalted universe also once counted on the WSJ, especially during the pre-Murdoch era. This is not to say that the WSJ's editorial and opinion pages were similarly stellar back then, but since it was understood the paper had a certain viewpoint (pro-business, anti-tax, laissez-faire), one expected the articles on those pages to contain cherry-picked facts; after all, that's what such sections are for. At the least, though, one could believe the facts themselves—however they may have been twisted or misinterpreted to make a point—were solid, not squishy.

The Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists lays out a journalist's responsibilities. Among them: " Deliberate distortion is never permissible." Admittedly this Code of Ethics is voluntary, as there is no licensing or policing of journalists or columnists, nor is there any requirement for a particular sort of education or experience. Journalists must police themselves, and the public's job is to slam them when they don't.

Consider this column as such a slam, then. Let us take as a case in point the column by Karl Rove called "Nancy Pelosi's Unwelcome Christmas Gift," published on page A17 of the WSJ's opinion section on Thurs., Dec. 2. We've come to expect Karl Rove's writings to be unsatisfactory, but this one breaks new ground for disingenuousness. What were the WSJ's editors thinking when they published this? Did they even read it before they sent it out to millions of readers? Someone did: there's a "teaser" highlighting one of Rove's absurd assertions: "A couple earning $80,000 could lose hundreds per month if the Bush tax rates aren't extended."

Rove's beef is that Nancy Pelosi is insisting that the Obama tax cuts for those who earn under $250,000 a year should stay in place, but wants to see a rate hike on the portion of a taxpayer's taxable income that exceeds that amount. Rove leaves out the italicized information. He darkly warns us that "Congress could go home [for the holidays] without stopping the largest tax increase in the nation's history." Say what? The "increase" would be for only the top bracket, and it still would come nowhere near the top rate paid earlier in our history (up to 91%; now it's only 35%).

Rove fails to include essential facts needed to understand the U.S. Tax Code (contrary to the SPJ Code of Ethics: "[Journalists] should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.") He omits the fact that every single taxpayer pays the same tax rate at every step in the Tax Code. The Tax Rate Tables at the end of the link show clearly that every other taxpayer—including Rupert Murdoch, George Soros and Karl Rove—is subject to a mere 10% tax on the first $8,350 of taxable income (if filing as a single person). We're all subject to the same rates every step of the way. We all benefited from the Obama tax cuts, and under the Pelosi plan we will all retain all of them, except for the taxable income over the highest income threshhold.

Rove also omits mention of a huge tax benefit given to all taxpayers, but which disproportionately benefits the wealthy: capital gains income is subject to a piddling 15% tax rate.

Where were the WSJ editors in all this? Surely they have access to telephones, e-mail and fax machines so that they can query Rove and other op-ed contributors about their omissions, misstatements and flat-out lies. Or are these editors (Paul A. Gigot is the WSJ editorial page editor and Daniel Henninger is deputy editor) following the trend of their peers at other U.S. newspapers—of publishing op-ed submissions and syndicated material without providing any editorial input? The reader is then left to figure out whether the information is worthy, because the editors have abdicated their responsibility. Does the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics' first principle, that "deliberate distortion is never permissible," apply to writers, but not editors?

Look at what happens when the gate-keepers and vetters of information—editors—fail to edit: opinion pieces that should never have been published are circulated world-wide, and quoted by others as if they're fact.

Rove's "Christmas Gift" column got 564 comments (as of Dec. 3) on the WSJ website, but no one can post a comment unless he or she is a WSJ subscriber. Readers of the web version of Rove's column may wade through these comments, and in so doing they may be able to ferret out the full facts from among some wild assertions—tamed somewhat by the WSJ's laudable requirement that those posting comments must use their real names.

But what about the rest of the public? Why, they get served Rove's disingenuous tripe for breakfast on the cable and radio talk shows--with much hype and derision and incivility thrown in for entertainment value.

Anyone who wonders why this country appears to be an intellectual and brutal wasteland needs to trace the "supply chain" of information to the source: the editors at the Wall Street Journal and other "mainstream" media.


Alice Cherbonnier is the Managing Editor of the Baltimore Chronicle.



Copyright © 2010 The Baltimore News Network. All rights reserved.

Republication or redistribution of Baltimore Chronicle content is expressly prohibited without their prior written consent.

Baltimore News Network, Inc., sponsor of this web site, is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed in stories posted on this web site are the authors' own.

This story was published on December 5, 2010.
 

Public Service Ads: