The Wall Street Journal editorial board members oversee the Journal's editorial page, dictating the tone and direction of the newspaper's opinion section.
Every Saturday and Sunday, three editorial page writers and host Paul Gigot, editor of the Editorial Page, appear on Fox News Channel's Journal Editorial Report to discuss current issues with a variety of guests. As editors of the editorial page, Vermont C. Royster (served 1958–1971) and Robert L. Bartley (served 1972–2000) were especially influential in providing a conservative interpretation of the news on a daily basis.[2]
History
The Journal describes the history of its editorials:
We speak for free markets and free people, the principles, if you will, marked in the watershed year of 1776 by Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence and Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations
— WSJ Editorial Board
Its historical position was much the same. As former editor William H. Grimes wrote in 1951:
On our editorial page we make no pretense of walking down the middle of the road. Our comments and interpretations are made from a definite point of view. We believe in the individual, in his wisdom and his decency. We oppose all infringements on individual rights, whether they stem from attempts at private monopoly, labor union monopoly or from an overgrowing government. People will say we are conservative or even reactionary. We are not much interested in labels but if we were to choose one, we would say we are radical. Just as radical as the Christian doctrine.[4]
Each Thanksgiving the editorial page prints two articles that have appeared there since 1961. The first is titled The Desolate Wilderness, and describes what the Pilgrims saw when they arrived at the Plymouth Colony. The second is titled And the Fair Land, and describes the bounty of America.[citation needed] It was written by a former editor, Vermont C. Royster, whose Christmas article In Hoc Anno Domini has appeared every December 25 since 1949.[5][6]
Contrasts have been noted between the Journal's news reporting and its editorial pages.[7] "While Journal reporters keep busy informing readers," wrote one reporter in 1982, "Journal editorial writers put forth views that often contradict the paper's best reporting and news analysis."[8] Two summaries published in 1995 by the progressive blog Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, and in 1996 by the Columbia Journalism Review[9] criticized the Journal's editorial page for inaccuracy during the 1980s and 1990s. One reference work in 2011 described the editorial pages as "rigidly neoconservative" while noting that the news coverage "has enjoyed a sterling reputation among readers of all political stripes".[10]
When Rupert Murdoch bought the Journal from the Bancroft family he promised Paul Steiger that “What is on the Opinion pages will never be allowed to flow into the news pages,” and “The two must be kept distinct and while I sometimes find myself nodding in agreement with the comment and commentators, even I occasionally find the views a little too far to the right.”[11]
In 2016 the environmental business group Partnership for Responsible Growth took out ads in the opinion section of the Journal which criticized the Board's position on climate change.[12]
The candidacy and later Presidency of Donald Trump split the Editorial Board and further separated the Board from the Journal's news department. As a result of the conflict a number of staff including Bret Stephens, Bari Weiss, Robert Messenger, and Sohrab Ahmari left the WSJ. After first backing Ted Cruz the board dramatically shifted its support to Trump; according to editors who left the board this shift was due to Rupert Murdoch realizing that Trump could win the election.[13]
In July 2020, more than 280 Journal journalists and Dow Jones staff members wrote a letter to new publisher Almar Latour to criticize the opinion pages' "lack of fact-checking and transparency, and its apparent disregard for evidence", adding that "opinion articles often make assertions that are contradicted by WSJ reporting."[14][15] Among the pieces criticized in the letter was a Mike Pence written one entitled "There Isn't a Coronavirus 'Second Wave.'"[16] The editorial board responded that its opinion pages "won't wilt under cancel-culture pressure" and that the objective of the editorial content is to be independent of the Journal's news content and offer alternative views to "the uniform progressive views that dominate nearly all of today's media."[17] The board's response did not address issues regarding fact-checking that had been raised in the letter.[18]
During the Reagan administration, the editorial page was particularly influential as the leading voice for supply-side economics. Under the editorship of Robert L. Bartley, it expounded at length on economic concepts such as the Laffer curve, and how a decrease in certain marginal tax rates and the capital gains tax could allegedly increase overall tax revenue by generating more economic activity.[19]
The Journal's editorial pages and columns, run separately from the news pages, have a conservative bent and are highly influential in establishment conservative circles.[21] Despite this, the Journal refrains from endorsing candidates and has not endorsed a candidate since 1928.[22] Some of the Journal's former reporters claim that the paper has adopted a more conservative tone since Rupert Murdoch's purchase.[23]
The editorial board has long argued for a pro-human-rights immigration policy. In a July 3, 1984, editorial the board wrote: "If Washington still wants to 'do something' about immigration, we propose a five-word constitutional amendment: There shall be open borders." This stand on immigration reform places the Journal in contrast to most conservative activists, politicians, and media publications, such as National Review and The Washington Times, who favor heightened restrictions on immigration.[24]
The Journal's editorial page has been seen as critical of many aspects of Barack Obama's presidency. In particular, it has been a prominent critic of the Affordable Care Act legislation passed in 2010, and has featured many opinion columns attacking various aspects of the bill.[25] The Journal's editorial page has also criticized the Obama administration's energy policies and foreign policy.[26][27][28]
On October 25, 2017, the editorial board called for Special Counsel Robert Mueller to resign from the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and accused Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign of colluding with Russia.[29] In December 2017, the editorial board repeated its calls for Mueller's resignation.[30][31] The Board criticized Mueller's handling of Peter Strzok and questioned Mueller's credibility. A piece published by the Board from a contributor claimed that the investigation would "imperil the rule of law".[31] The editorials by the editorial board caused fractures within The Wall Street Journal, as reporters said that the editorials undermined the paper's credibility.[30][31][32]
In October 2021, the editorial board let former president Donald Trump publish a letter in the editorial pages of the paper. News sources described the contents of the letter as false and debunked claims about the 2020 presidential election.[33][34][35] The decision to publish the letter was poorly received by many on the Journal's news side.[16] In response to criticism of the Journal's decision to publish the letter, the editorial board said the criticism was "cancel-culture pressure".[36]
The Journal is regarded as a forum for climate change deniers, publishing articles by individuals that reject the consensus position on climate change in its op-ed section.[38] The Journal editorial pages were described as a "forum for climate change denial" in 2011 due to columns that attacked climate scientists and accused them of engaging in fraud.[39] A 2011 study found that the Journal was alone among major American print news media in how, mainly in its editorial pages, it adopted a false balance that overplayed the uncertainty in climate science or denied anthropogenic climate change altogether.[40] That year, the Associated Press described the Journal's editorial pages as "a place friendly to climate change skeptics".[41] In 2013, the editorial board and other opinion writers vocally criticized President Obama's plan to address climate change, mostly without mentioning climate science.[42] A 2015 study found The Wall Street Journal was the newspaper that was least likely to present negative effects of global warming among several newspapers. It was also the most likely to present negative economic framing when discussing climate change mitigation policies, tending to take the stance that the cost of such policies generally outweighs their benefit.[40]
Climate Feedback, a fact-checking website on media coverage of climate science, determined that multiple opinion articles range between "low" and "very low" in terms of scientific credibility.[43][44] The Partnership for Responsible Growth stated in 2016 that 14% of the guest editorials on climate change presented the results of "mainstream climate science", while the majority did not. The Partnership also determined that none of the 201 editorials concerning climate change that were published in The Wall Street Journal since 1997 conceded that the burning of fossil fuels is the main cause of climate change.[45]
In the 1980s and 1990s, the Journal published numerous columns opposing and misrepresenting the scientific consensus on the harms of second-hand smoke.[46][47][48] A 1994 opinion article said that “the anti-smoking brigade relies on proving that secondhand smoke is a dangerous threat to the health of others. ‘Science’ is invoked in ways likely to give science a bad name. . . . [t]he health effects of secondhand smoke are a stretch.”[46]
In 1980 Robert L. Bartley was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for editorial writing.[70]
In 1983 Manuela Hoelterhoff was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for criticism for her "wide-ranging criticism on the arts and other subjects."[68]
In 1984 Vermont Royster was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for commentary.[71]
In 2000 Paul Gigot's column "Potomac Watch" won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary.[72]
In 2001 Dorothy Rabinowitz was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for commentary for "articles on American society and culture."[56]
In 2005 Joe Morgenstern was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for criticism for "reviews that elucidated the strengths and weaknesses of film with rare insight, authority and wit."[67]
In 2011 Joseph Rago was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for editorial writing.[66]
In 2013 Bret Stephens was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for commentary for "incisive columns on American foreign policy and domestic politics, often enlivened by a contrarian twist."[73]
In 2017 Peggy Noonan was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for commentary "For rising to the moment with beautifully rendered columns that connected readers to the shared virtues of Americans during one of the nation’s most divisive political campaigns."[58]
^ abcRichard Vetter, "Wall Street Journal", in Bruce Frohnen, ed. American Conservatism (2006), pp. 898–99.
^"Editorial Board". Dow Jones & Company. Archived from the original on January 9, 2022. Retrieved April 21, 2021.
^Grimes, William H. (January 2, 1951). "A Newspaper's Philosophy". The Wall Street Journal. New York, NY. seen in "A Newspaper's Philosophy". Dow Jones & Company. 2007. Archived from the original on July 16, 2007. Retrieved August 26, 2011.
Vardy, Mark; Oppenheimer, Michael; Dubash, Navroz K.; O'Reilly, Jessica; Jamieson, Dale (2017-10-17). "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Challenges and Opportunities". Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 42 (1): 55–75. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-061053. ISSN1543-5938. One of the tactics successfully used to discredit climate science is typified by Frederick Seitz's 1996 commentary in The Wall Street Journal in which he argued that the IPCC did not follow its own rules for peer review. Subsequent analysis showed that the IPCC did not transgress any of its rules of peer review, which in fact are more rigorous than the standards of peer review that academic journals typically try to uphold
Shaun W. Elsasser, Riley E. Dunlap: Leading Voices in the Denier Choir: Conservative Columnists' Dismissal of Global Warming and Denigration of Climate Science. American Behavioral Scientist 57, No. 6, 2013, 754–776, doi:10.1177/0002764212469800 "... and clearly Fox, leading conservative newspapers such as the WSJ ... provide powerful provide powerful fora for the promotion of climate change denial."
Cassella, Carly (June 12, 2018). "The Wall Street Journal Still Treats Climate Change as "Opinion", And This Practice Needs to Stop". ScienceAlert. Archived from the original on August 12, 2022. Retrieved August 3, 2022. For years, the WSJ has run opinion piece after opinion piece, questioning the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Too often, these "opinions" are written by authors with strong ties to the fossil fuel industry. In May of 2018, for example, the WSJ published an article that proclaimed, "Sea levels are rising, but not because of climate change."
^Lerbinger, Otto (2006-08-15). Corporate Public Affairs: Interacting With Interest Groups, Media, and Government. Routledge. p. 161. ISBN978-1-135-59999-7.
.jpg)