WSJ editorial attack is bad business for democracy in our country

NPR stands up for its independence and leaves Twitter

By Ken Tingley

They may be the most important 45 words for preserving our democracy - The First Amendment.

Those words were celebrated for most of the past two decades on an engraved 50-ton marble tablet on the front of the Newseum in Washington, D.C. It soared 74-feet high over Pennsylvania Avenue. It has more recently found a home at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.

It is the journalist’s 23rd Psalm:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So it can be discouraging when it is used inappropriately, such as the Fox News defense in the Dominion Voting Systems case that goes to trial on Monday.

It was especially discouraging last week when the Wall Street Journal editorial board attacked journalists at ProPublica for its investigative reporting that revealed Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas had been receiving luxurious vacations for decades from a Republican donor.

The Wall Street Journal made its reputation in the newspaper world for its analysis and coverage of big business and Wall Street. It has been one of the most read newspapers for decades. But there has been concern about its editorial page in recent years.

For years, it seemed to be specifically anti-science. During the 1980s and 1990s, the Journal published columns misrepresenting the harmful affects of second-hand smoke, acid rain and ozone layer depletion. It downplayed the dangers of asbestos and pesticides.

More recently, it has given significant space to climate change deniers.

Since Rupert Murdoch purchased the newspaper in 2007, its editorial board has become increasingly more politically involved while taking up conservative issues.

In 2017, the editorial board accused Hillary Clinton’s campaign of colluding with Russia and called for Robert Mueller to resign before he finished his investigation.

Some Journal reporters criticized the editorials for undermining the newspaper’s credibility.

In 2020, more than 280 journalists at the Wall Street Journal wrote a letter to the new publisher criticizing the opinion pages for the “lack of fact-checking” in editorials, while pointing out they often contradicted the Wall Street Journal’s own reporting.

So it should not have come as a surprise when the WSJ editorial board attacked ProPublica last week for doing a good piece of journalism.

  First, a word about ProPublica. It describes itself as “an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism with moral force. We dig deep into important issues, shining a light on abuses of power and betrayals of public trust - and we stick with those issues as long as it takes to hold power to account.”

It was the first online news source to win a Pulitzer Prize. It is well respected in journalism circles.

The story on Clarence Thomas was thorough and filled with not only facts, but photos from some of Thomas’ free vacations. It raised important questions about the ethical standards Supreme Court justices should be held and whether the Court’s conservative viewpoints were being rewarded.

The Wall Street Journal editorial Friday was titled: “The Smearing of Clarence Thomas: The left gins up another phony ethics assault to tarnish the Supreme Court.”

They can write that because of the First Amendment.

Good editorial writing is something I know something about. I was editor of The Post-Star when Mark Mahoney won the Pulitzer Prize for editorial writing in 2009 and I wrote a good portion of the editorials after he left. Good editorials will analyze the facts on both sides and come to a conclusion, but also leave readers room to come to their own conclusion. I don’t ever remember publishing an editorial bashing another publication for coming to a different conclusion than my own.

The Wall Street Journal editorial wasn’t so much an analysis as it was a dismissal of the reporting by saying ProPublica was “a left-leaning website.” That’s a cheap shot.

On  Monday, Poynter Institute Senior Media Writer Tom Jones responded, calling it “an astonishing brazen editorial.”

Jones took the time to refute the criticism of the reporting paragraph by paragraph and pointed out that ProPublica is “an elite level journalism outlet with multiple Pulitzer Prize winners.”

He continued by writing, “While one has the right to question whether Thomas actually broke any ethical or legal guidelines, the Journal’s editorial board attack on a respected media outlet in this way is unseemly. To dismiss a well-reported story as a political hack job that is some part of a grand media conspiracy because it doesn’t like the court’s makeup felt beneath The Wall Street Journal.”

I think Jones was being kind.

It is beneath any professional publication.

Jones also pointed out significant omissions from the editorial:

- At no point did the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board ever mention Thomas and the problematic conflict involving his wife, Ginni, and her deep connections to powerful conservative activism, including trying to get the 2020 presidential election overturned.

- For the Journal’s editorial board to dismiss this as all ugly politics and biased journalism is as misguided as it is ironic.

- At no point did the editorial ever consider that a Supreme Court judge accepting gifts worth hundreds of thousands of dollar is worth reporting on and, at the very least, questioning.

The Poynter Institute “champions freedom of expression, civil dialogue and compelling journalism” so for its lead media writer to call out a newspaper for an editorial is unprecedented, but warranted.

If there was any doubt about it being warranted, it was confirmed on Thursday when ProPublica reported the same Republican benefactor had paid Thomas, his mother and the family of Thomas’ late brother $133,363 in a real estate transaction in 2014 for an older home where Thomas’ mother was living.

After the sale was completed, the benefactor spent tens of thousands of dollars on improvements to the two-bedroom, one bathroom house where Thomas’ mother still lived.

A post-Watergate disclosure law requires justices to disclose the details of most real estate transactions over $1,000. Thomas never disclosed the sale.

It will be interesting to see how the Wall Street Journal editorial board spins this latest development.

NPR and Twitter

When ever I make one of those lonely drives down the Thruway, I’m always thankful when I find an National Public Radio station.

Its reporters do great stories and prove that radio can still be valuable in all our lives.

I’ve never found it to be politically biased one way or another. When I listen to North Country Public Radio, I’m thankful to hear their valuable coverage of Adirondack issues and rural communities.

This past week, Twitter changed NPR’s tag to suggest it was “state-affiliated media.”

That has a somewhat negative connotation usually associated with dictatorship is and authoritarian regimes. Just 1 percent of NPR’s funding comes from the government.

In response, NPR issues this statement:

“NPR’s organizational accounts will no longer be active on Twitter because the platform is taking actions that undermine our credibility by falsely implying that we are not editorially independent.”

What that means is that NPR will no longer post to any of its 52 official Twitter accounts. It’s good to see an organization stand up against someone like Musk.

Girard update

Joe Girard III is reported to have scheduled an official visit to LSU this weekend.

He tweeted Thursday, “Baton Rouge, Louisiana” with purple and gold hearts (LSU’s colors.