Wall Street Journal Fails To Disclose Nine Writers Are Romney Advisers

According to Media Matters, the Wall Street Journal has published twenty op-ed pieces from nine different writers that all work for Mitt Romney. The nine writers are listed on Media Matters as John BoltonMax BootLee A. CaseyPaula DobrianskyMary Ann GlendonGlenn HubbardPaul E. PetersonDavid B. Rivkin Jr.; and Martin West.

This is reminiscent of Fox News recently, where it was discovered that Fox hired Romney advisers to attack President Obama without disclosing they work for Romney.


Media Matters reports that

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 seven 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.

Media Matterspreviously documented that the Journal regularly fails to disclose columnist Karl Rove’s ties to the super PAC American Crossroads and its related organization Crossroads GPS, which are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to defeat President Obama and other Democratic candidates. The paper’s lack of disclosure on Rove has drawn criticism from some of America’s top editorial page editors as well as Trevor Potter, who served as general counsel to Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaigns.

The article by Media Matters linked above also offers an in-depth review of each Romney adviser and their direct contributions to the Wall Street Journal.

This is poor journalism. Most news sources are biased; the only way to be truly unbiased is to keep your mouth shut, or in this case, your laptop. The problem with political bias in the news doesn’t come with bias. It comes with blatant manipulation of data as has become common with Fox News, or in cases like this where political bias or affiliation is not disclosed. Even more insultingly in the case of Fox, which has a clear conservative bias, is the “fair and balanced” slogan they toss around.

Advocacy journalism as fine, as long as it’s made clear what you’re advocating. In fact (and for example), you can readily follow my information and discover that not only am I a writer for an openly liberal news site, but that I am a firm proponent of liberal ideals both fiscally and socially. However, you can also follow anything I link and read my sources and information, allowing you to make your own opinion if you feel you have reason to doubt my journalistic ability. I do not change statistics or facts, and I disclose exactly what my aims are.

That’s more than WSJ can say. Honesty is more than they can claim.

I would be delighted if you joined me on Facebook for instant access to my articles.