Wall Street Journal Makes Rightward Veer With News Hire

Via Michael Calderone at Politico comes the news that the Wall Street Journal has hired Gerard Baker, a self-styled "right-wing curmudgeon" from the Times Of London, as the paper's new deputy editor-in-chief, where he will have oversight of the Journal's news coverage. Calderone says that the move "surprised some staffers because of his strong, right-wing political views." No doubt the surprise wore off after those staffers remembered recent events and said to themselves, "Oh, that's right! The Wall Street Journal was recently acquired by Rupert Murdoch after a protracted battle with the hopeless Bancroft family!"

And, in case you were wondering precisely what sort of right-wing ideologue you were getting at the Journal, and whether it made it more or less likely that the paper's famed editorial tilt would bleed its way into the news coverage, E&P's Greg Mitchell is here to remind you that Baker famously penned a column titled "Obama: is America ready for this dangerous left winger?" back in February 2008, in which he fulminated on a worldview that he claimed Obama espoused, one that included a fundamental lack of love for his country:

There is a caste of left-wing Americans who wish essentially and in all honesty that their country was much more like France. They wish it had much higher levels of taxation and government intervention, that it had much higher levels of welfare, that it did not have such a "militaristic" approach to foreign policy. Above all, that its national goals were dictated, not by the dreadful halfwits who inhabit godforsaken places like Kansas and Mississippi, but by the counsels of the United Nations.

Though Mr Obama has done a good job, as all recent serious Democrats have done, of emphasising his belief in American virtues, his record and his programme suggest he is firmly in line with this wing of his party.

To make matters worse, Baker isn't particularly gifted with news instincts of intelligence or precision: "Though [Obama] talks with great eloquence about the future, he sounds for all the world like one of the long line of Democrats from George McGovern to Walter Mondale to Michael Dukakis, who became history by espousing policies and striking a rhetorical pose that was well out of the mainstream of American politics."

That said, if there's one area in which Baker truly excels, it's definitely the production of batpoopy-wack videography. We hear that stuff is recession-proof!

Comments

[reasonshouldrule]

The WSJ has always been conservative, but it nevertheless has had credibility. Now it is simply a fascist propaganda machine, and with Baker making the decisions, has no credibility at all. I'll be surprised if it survives with all the problems newspapers are having these days.

[blueskybigstar]

Murdoch does not care if it stays in the black or not. Rush Limbaugh just got a contract that pays him more than he brings in for the stations. The point is to keep the prop a gan da machine going because the political influence of the pro pa gan da will make Murdoch more money than, in comparison to his riches, some two bit newspaper.

[mercuryguy]

Its sad that WSJ has become this Bad. I have stopped reading it altogether.

[truthyguy]

It doesn't matter who they hire as editor. Most of the readership left when Murdoch bought the paper. The Financial Times is doing much better thanks to the changes at the WSJ.

[MissKaren]

The Financial Times is a superb paper.

[frontstreet]

I am actually quite alarmed and saddened that the WSJ hired this blowhard for the news division. Yes, the op-ed pages of the WSJ have always been way to the right, but much of the news coverage was professional, and the paper had a history of hiring some fine reporters. The hiring of this right wing hack as deputy editor-in-chief signals the end of the WSJ as we know it, and the beginning of Fox News on paper. This is one more step in Rupert Murdoch's quest for right-wing domination of all media.

[MargaretO]

Like it hasn't been right wing for a while now.

[pons1595]

Yes, you are correct; the WSJ has been dipping into not leaning towards the right for as long as I can recall.

[blueskybigstar]

Right wing did not always mean l i a r s. There were some that had credibility. WSJ will no longer have any.

[BrianInMKE]

I already canceled my WSJ subscription when it came up for renewal last June. Much happier with the pro business but more balanced Financial Times. The WSJ has become increasingly fascist over the last 10 years; especially with the continuous failures of the GW Bush administration.

[AmazedOne]

Just what we needed - NOT ! Another Fixed Noise...

[TravisReedJr]

it's gonna go in the tank just like the republican ideology... wsj and fox will slowly lose credibility and become useless as wall street fails....... instead of outsourcing new ideas the right-wing will implode
and become non-existent.... moderates will shift to the right, liberals will become moderates and a whole new left-wing will be introduced.... evolution..... let's just watch these far right-wingers scramble as change takes over.......

[Pupadup4oBama]

I can't WAIT until Obama can start turning things around and these blowhards will go the way of the dodo bird....or at least shut their traps!

[Blue in NH]

Ah, the Fox Street Journal!

[realmeows]

Blue_in_NH, you hit the bull's-eye! I hope the Democrats introduce legislation to limit the number of media outlets that any one person can own so that there are still some media sources that remain untouched and uncontaminated by the unprincipled, greedy, power-mad Rupert Murdoch who packages lies as truth.

[NWBrunette]

Perhaps I nodded off for a moment, but when was it that the WSJ was not a right-wing rag? When did it support something even the least little bit liberal?

[Tim303]

Quite. But it's pretty lame that they had to hire someone from another country to do the fulminating. The Times broke the "Obama's aunt" story just before the election by the way. Yikes. These guys need to be watched, permanently, until the Times guy quits.

[Ladyrantsalot]

A couple of years ago, I spent 2 years in the UK and was frankly astonished by the decline of the Times of London in terms of the quality of writing and analysis (I had last lived there in 1979). Every newspaper Rupert Murdoch touches turns into golden garbage.

[Ron1951]

While the news in the WSJ is still good, the editorials and op-eds are trash. I have already let me subscription expire--but they keep sending it to me. I expected this when Murdoch bought the paper, and the prophecy was fulfilled.

Note: for financial information and good news reporting, the Financial Times is excellent, and costs a lot less than the WSJ.

[rssrai]

Didn't Al Gore give the approval on Murdoch buying the WSJ?? Sometimes you think what the fu#k! If I worked at the WSJ and had some ethics I would think about leaving like now.

[sticksnstones]

No!! This can't be!! Somebody snuck in a rithtie wacko into a big chair, corner office, at the WSJ right under Rupert's nose. Just wait till he finds out. Heads will roll. This is not the direction he wanted the paper to go when he was negotiating the paper's purchase. He said so.