Prominent media source fails to disclose ties to Presidential candidate

[JollyRoger]

The Wall Street Journal has published op-eds from 10 writers without disclosing their roles as advisers to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. The op-eds attack President Obama and his administration or discuss Romney on a range of topics like the economy, health care, education and foreign policy.

According to a Media Matters review, the Journal published a total of 23 pieces from the following Romney advisers without disclosing their campaign ties: John Bolton; Max Boot; Lee A. Casey; Paula Dobriansky; Mary Ann Glendon; Glenn Hubbard; Michael Mukasey; Paul E. Peterson; David B. Rivkin Jr.; and Martin West. In several instances, the Journal failed to disclose an op-ed writer's connection despite its own news section reporting that the writer is advising Romney.

With respect to one writer, the Journal disclosed his ties to the campaign in an initial op-ed but failed to do so in subsequent op-eds. With regard to another, the paper failed to disclose the campaign ties in an initial op-ed but did do so in later pieces. The eight remaining writers have not had their Romney connections disclosed in any of their op-eds following the publication of those ties, according to Media Matters' review.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/09/19/nine-wall-street-journal-op-ed-writers-who-were/189979

I report, you decide.

JR has no campaign ties to any Presidential candidate.

 

[Andvare]

Has the Wall Street Journal dropped in quality after News Corp's takeover?

I believe it has, but I am not a very good source, as I have read it only sparingly, and IMHO pretty much all newspapers have dropped in quality in the last decade.

 

[Cutlass]

WSJ has a split personality, and has for years. There's the news side, which tries to report news, and the editorial side, which is actively partisan Republican.

 

[JollyRoger]

Has the Wall Street Journal dropped in quality after News Corp's takeover?

I believe it has, but I am not a very good source, as I have read it only sparingly, and IMHO pretty much all newspapers have dropped in quality in the last decade.

I haven't read it in years, but the reporting used to be high quality and it was obvious that the editorial section either ignored, didn't understand, or didn't read the rest of the paper. I suspect that the editorial section is about the same and that news quality has gone down, but I have subscribed since about early 2009, so I can't say for sure.

 

[History_Buff]

WSJ has a split personality, and has for years. There's the news side, which tries to report news, and the editorial side, which is actively partisan Republican.

This. It's actually very weird to try and read.