Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, December 27, 2018

The Wall Street Journal's editorial page offered a feisty Boxing Day piece on Wednesday lashing into the Washington Post over coverage of President Trump's Christmastime visit to the troops. The Journal focused on this piece by the Post's Philip Rucker and Paul Sonne, citing the opening two paragraphs and accusing it of needlessly working in unrelated Trump scandals into a piece that did not call for it.

"Can anyone reading those opening two sentences wonder why millions of Americans believe Donald Trump when he tells them that he can't get a fair shake from the press?" the Journal asked. "The point isn't to feel sorry for Mr. Trump, whose rhetorical attacks on the press have often been contemptible. The point is that such gratuitously negative reporting undermines the credibility of the press without Mr. Trump having to say a word."

The story with the passages cited no longer appeared to exist in any version of the story on the Post's own site Thursday morning.



Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I would have linked the actual WSJ article but it is behind a paywall.

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-27 11:09 PM | Reply

I read about this. Journalism is in a pretty sad state and has been for over a decade in this country.

#2 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-28 12:43 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Thanks, Capitalism!

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-28 12:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1


No, Democrats Don't Want ‘Open Borders'

President Trump has falsely claimed at least two dozen times since taking office that Democrats want to open American borders. But legislation shows that Democrats support border security measures, though not the border wall he wants to build.


Mackris is SO easy.... most ----- are.

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-28 01:08 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Righties are sick of being mocked for gargling trampy's sharts.

Poor saps.

#5 | Posted by bored at 2018-12-28 01:56 AM | Reply

#4 So... you don't support open borders?

#6 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-12-28 03:42 AM | Reply

Donald Trump told the troops he had arranged for them to have a 10% pay raise, and claimed it was the first pay raise they have gotten in 10 years. WSJ is fake news. Murdoch is nothing but fake news. Murdoch should be deported. He is the single most evil person in the world.

#7 | Posted by danni at 2018-12-28 07:07 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#4 So... you don't support open borders?

Finally. Starting to understand that what you've been told, what you had chosen to believe, is all a lie?

This could be a good day for you. Let the scales fall from your eyes!

#8 | Posted by YAV at 2018-12-28 07:38 AM | Reply

So... you don't support open borders?

Does Andrea, a mattress?

"I don't believe in the literal WALL across Americas southern border

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-28 10:04 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

""President Trump touched down Wednesday in Iraq in his first visit to a conflict zone as commander in chief, a week after announcing a victory over the Islamic State that his own Pentagon and State Department days earlier said remained incomplete.

"The president's visit to Al Asad Air Base west of Baghdad, which was shrouded in secrecy, follows months of public pressure for him to spend time with troops deployed to conflicts in the Middle East and punctuates the biggest week of turmoil the Pentagon has faced during his presidency."

Not one sentence of that is biased, partisan or untrue. WSJ is owned by Murdoch and is generally fake news.
Did they mention the lies Trump told the troops while he was there? 10% raise for the first raise they've had in 10 years???? Which was a complete lie. That the shutdown is the fault of the Democrats after he stated on camera that he would take full responsibility for the shutdown. WSJ is a WS Joke.

#10 | Posted by danni at 2018-12-28 10:10 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"#4 So... you don't support open borders?"

There is a party that supports open borders. It isn't the Democratic Party, never has been. It is the Libertarian Party.

"Paul: If it were only border controls that had to do with people coming to work, I'm for as many people coming to work who want to. I'm for an expansive work visa program where we don't mind people coming to work. The problem is, as Milton Friedman described it, is that we have an enormous welfare apparatus. Not everybody comes to work. Some people come to receive. If 60 million people come here [perhaps he meant 600 million, the figure he stated earlier], it would overwhelm us."

He's full of s**t. I have a legal immigrant daughter in law, she had to agree to be ineligible for all public assistance in order to get the visa to immigrate. Which she did and now works full time legally because of her green card. But she still is eligible for no benefits of any kind from the government. When she needs annual check ups or other medical treatments she flies back to her native nation and receives the care.

"The major federal public benefits programs have always left some non–U.S. citizens out of eligibility for assistance from the programs. Since their inception, programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program), nonemergency Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and its precursor, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), have been inaccessible to undocumented immigrants and people in the United States on temporary visas.

However, the 1996 federal welfare and immigration laws introduced an unprecedented new era of restrictionism. Prior to these laws' enactment, lawful permanent residents of the U.S. generally were eligible for assistance in a manner similar to U.S. citizens. After these laws' enactment, most lawfully residing immigrants were barred from receiving assistance under the major federal benefits programs for five years or longer. Even where eligibility for immigrants was preserved by the 1996 laws or restored by subsequent legislation, many immigrant families hesitate to enroll in critical health-care, job-training, nutrition, and cash-assistance programs due to fear and confusion caused by the laws' chilling effects. As a result, the participation of immigrants in public benefits programs decreased sharply after passage of the 1996 laws, causing severe hardship for many low-income families who lacked the support available to other low-income families."


#11 | Posted by danni at 2018-12-28 10:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Rupert Murdoch criticizes an actual journalist reporting facts. Film at 11.

#12 | Posted by Nixon at 2018-12-28 10:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The LP was for a massive immigration overhaul while people were still busy -------- on Mexicans just to spite Bush.

#13 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-12-28 12:27 PM | Reply

From the LP platform:

Libertarians believe that people should be able to travel freely as long as they are peaceful. We welcome immigrants who come seeking a better life. The vast majority of immigrants are very peaceful and highly productive.

Indeed, the United States is a country of immigrants, of all backgrounds and walks of life ... some families have just been here for more generations than others. Newcomers bring great vitality to our society.

A truly free market requires the free movement of people, not just products and ideas.

Whether they are from India or Mexico, whether they have advanced degrees or very little education, immigrants have one great thing in common: they bravely left their familiar surroundings in search of a better life. Many are fleeing extreme poverty and violence and are searching for a free and safe place to try to build their lives. We respect and admire their courage and are proud that they see the United States as a place of freedom, stability, and prosperity.

Of course, if someone has a record of violence, credible plans for violence, or acts violently, then Libertarians support blocking their entry, deporting, and/or prosecuting and imprisoning them, depending on the offense.

Libertarians do not support classifying undocumented immigrants as criminals. Our current immigration system is an embarrassment. People who would like to follow the legal procedures are unable to because these procedures are so complex and expensive and lengthy. If Americans want immigrants to enter through legal channels, we need to make those channels fair, reasonable, and accessible.

#14 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-12-28 12:30 PM | Reply

Just for a final check as to what party supports an actual open border, and not a regulated one, lets go to the Greens...

Greens urged Congress to enact the following:

Amnesty and legalization for all currently undocumented immigrants in the US, with efforts to help them with education, living-wage jobs, and residential stability, with an emphasis on uniting families (same-sex and nontraditional as well as traditional): Greens call such measures an investment in our immigrant population that will pay off for everyone.

That's the best you get out of a party with no central leadership. Amnesty, streamlined immigration path.

TLDR: No party supports "Open Borders". It's all varying degrees of regulation.

#15 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-12-28 01:03 PM | Reply

WSJ is owned by Murdoch and is generally fake news. WSJ is a WS Joke.

Tell that to the Pulitzer Prize committee, the WSJ has won 30 of them.

#16 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-28 02:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Do Nobel Peace Prize next!

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-28 03:07 PM | Reply

Murdoch took over the WSJ towards the end of 2007.
For the past 11 years the WSJ has won 4 Pulitzer's, 3 for "Commentary" and 1 for investigative reporting.

They won 12 Pulitzers from 1997-2007 (previous 11 years), so it looks like they were doing a lot better before Murdoch on their reporting/commentary.

From 12 to 4 (per 11 years).

Good thing they kept Peggy Noonan.

(If you want to do your own research)

#18 | Posted by YAV at 2018-12-28 03:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Good thing they kept Peggy Noonan."


#20 | Posted by danni at 2018-12-28 03:36 PM | Reply

Thanks for that Yav.

The point is, calling the Wall Street Journal "fake news" just exposes small minded partisan bias at its finest. The WSJ continually ranks as one of the most trusted newspapers in the country, out ranking both the NYT and WashPo consistently:

The most trusted news source in the U.S. is the Economist -- a venerable weekly magazine published in the U.K.

The second most reliable news source, in the view of voluntary survey respondents, is public television (with the Public Broadcasting Service separately ranking sixth among survey respondents), followed by Reuters and BBC. National Public Radio placed just ahead of PBS at No. 5, while the U.K.'s the Guardian clinched the seventh spot. The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times and the Dallas Morning News rounded out the 10 most trusted brands.

Trusting News Project Report 2017. University of Missouri Reynolds Journalism Institute research project

#21 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-28 04:18 PM | Reply

You're welcome, RoC.

I used to read the WSJ, but I don't any more. Too much questionable crud gets mixed in with the better commentary these days. I became disillusioned with it.

For that subject matter I prefer Financial Times and The Economist, personally.

#22 | Posted by YAV at 2018-12-28 05:05 PM | Reply


I agree, FT and the Economist are better all around, but the WSJ still can't be beat for current financial news in the US. It's still pretty decent on what regular news it reports, but I go to the LA Times for that.

#23 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-12-28 05:32 PM | Reply

but I go to the LA Times for that.

#23 | Posted by Rightocenter


#24 | Posted by jpw at 2018-12-28 10:50 PM | Reply

"The point is, calling the Wall Street Journal "fake news" just exposes small minded partisan bias at its finest."

Horse crap. That opinion piece failed to mention the outright lies Trump said to the troops nor the politicization of his remarks to them. That's not "fair and balanced" reporting, it is Fox News level FAKE NEWS.
And Peggy Noonan.....

"Peggy Noonan's Shameless Attempt To Rewrite (Her Own) History
06/29/2010 09:47 am ET Updated May 25, 2011
In her most recent Wall Street Journal column about the war in Afghanistan, Peggy Noonan actually tries to rewrite history twice: first, regarding President Bush's role in that war; and second, regarding her own role in relentlessly cheerleading the invasion of Iraq -- an invasion Noonan claims distracted the United States from finishing the battle in Afghanistan. (Now she tells us!)"


She is just a columnist and not a decision maker so I don't blame her for our wars but I do blame her for cheerleading for them and emonizing those of us who opposed them and who were eventually proven right. Then her attempts to repair her own reputation with dishonest claims about where she stood in those debates....the woman is a con artist and her speaking voice makes me need to hurl.

#25 | Posted by danni at 2018-12-29 08:05 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#25 | Posted by danni

She isn't paid to do that. She was selected to do that.

#26 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-12-29 08:37 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort