Trump Had One Last Story to Sell. The Wall Street Journal Wouldn’t Buy It.
A great piece by here. I, too, spent years saying it was a good thing to eliminate gatekeeping. I, too, was deeply wrong. Media gatekeeping by moral, cultured, educated people is a a necessary pillar of a functioning democracy.
Great stuff. Inside the Trump team’s bungled effort to get a damaging story in the WSj
Three cheers for gatekeepers? Like ⁦⁩ I welcomed the dismantling of the gates of information, and like him, I’m more than a little glad that some measure of institutional judgement and authority has survived.
A White House lawyer on the public payroll was part of a scheme to deliver Hunter Biden emails to the WSJ, per latest from
A White House lawyer, who is paid by taxpayers, is shopping dirt on the president's political rival
So basically Rudy and the NY Post blew Trump’s chance of getting this new Hunter story to blow up. This is the most Coen Brothers end you could possibly conjure.
Ben Smith with the inside dope on the WSJ’s handling of the Hunter Biden story
Return of the Gatekeepers: how the Wall Street Journal resisted a Trump set-up. Excellent column which all aspiring reporters and editors should read
The White House had a secret, last-ditch effort to change the narrative, and the election. Trump even boasted about what he thought would be a forthcoming bombshell. Instead, the Wall Street Journal debunked the fake, right-wing claims.
Fun scoop from . You can't help but laugh at the thought of Rudy, Bannon & Trump pulling a real-life Leeroy Jenkins on a carefully-planned political hit.
.⁦⁩ complimenting itself and other MSM as “gatekeepers” suppressing news to protect the poor ignorant public from themselves. “I hope Americans relieved that the gatekeepers are reasserting themselves ...”
The ⁦⁩ has shown great professionalism and independence through the Trump years. Their news reporters and editors remained focused on the truth: “Trump Had One Last Story to Sell. The Wall Street Journal Wouldn’t Buy It.”
This incredible story describes how, as the Trump White House was trying to lure the WSJ to report on the purported Hunter Biden emails, Rudy Giuliani went full-on Leeroy Jenkins and dumped everything on the NY Post.
A juicy one from ⁦⁩ on the laptop from hell via
Fun fact: One of the key players trying to sell the Hunter Biden story is the former WH top ethics attorney, Stefan Passantino via
This is a very good column. And it includes details of what sounds like yet more White House lawbreaking. But I disagree with Ben that this is a reassertion of an elite media gate keeping role. There’s hardly a blackout of the purported hunter ...
“Corporate records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden" was a Clintonian/legalistic way for to put it. Hard to view it as other than command decision to gatekeep. If "big guy" mail's real, there's a story worth following up
“I’d prefer to put my faith in Mr. Murray and careful, professional journalists like him.” A lot of us put our faith in ⁦⁩ and his leadership team daily, and we hope our readers do the same.
How the Wall Street Journal stopped the Hunter Biden story dead in its tracks, shattering the last ditch expectations of the Trump White House. Great reporting by
Here's Bobulinski claiming he only went public because Schiff accused NY Post of spreading Russian disinfo. If 's reporting is accurate, this is false. Working with Trump team, he'd already agreed to go on record with WSJ before NYP story came out
The story of why the laptop story appeared in the NYPost and then was shot down by the WSJ is just as fun as you’d hope.
Proud to work in the 's DC bureau
and remember all those 'he's changed his tone' segments on cable? we really need to remember how dumb the coverage was for the sake of not repeating the mistakes. cable tv needs to go where went
Any time and are directly involved in any story, you can be sure it will always stick to provable evidence and facts. Trump Had One Last Story to Sell. The Wall Street Journal Wouldn’t Buy It. by in
is putting on one hell of a clinic
Fantastic from on how the Wall Street Journal’s news division ultimately refused to be the misinformation vehicle for Trump’s final Biden smear.
Interessant stuk over de veranderende rol van traditionele media (door , voormalig hoofdredacteur van Buzzfeed, schrijft nu voor NYT)
Interesting that as BuzzFeed gets their hands on a WSJ report saying they should be more like the Times, BuzzFeed’s former editor writes a paean to the Journal’s across-the-spectrum-respected straight news reporting
But the last two weeks have proved...: that the old gatekeepers, like The Journal, can still control the agenda. It turns out there is a big difference between WikiLeaks and establishment media coverage of WikiLeaks...
Important piece in the vein of ongoing conversation about whether gatekeepers exist any longer (and if they should) cc
"It turns out there is a difference between WikiLeaks and establishment media coverage of WikiLeaks, a difference between a Trump tweet and an article about it, between a WSJ opinion piece, and a news article that didn’t reach the same conclusions."
The gatekeepers are back, Ben Smith argues in his column about how the Hunter Biden hard drive failed to become a big story. The opinion crew gave it a go, but the Journal's newsroom shut that down when they found nothing that connected to Joe Biden.
I dunno , rejecting an obvious bit of fraudulent nonsense from campaign hacks seems like the bare minimum we should expect from "media gatekeepers," not some triumph heralding their resilience.
Check out 's very smart piece about the White House's effort to plant the dubious Biden business story in the Wall Street Journal -- and the Journal's refusal to play stenographer to a hit squad. A very thoughtful look at gatekeepers.
Remember gatekeepers? They’re back. In pog form.
Yeah, of two minds cheering old school media gatekeepers but ambivalently is extremely extremely good.
“The last two weeks have proved the opposite: that the old gatekeepers, like The Journal, can still control the agenda. It turns out there is a big difference between WikiLeaks and establishment media coverage...”
“Benkler’s research showed was that the elite outlets’ ability to set the agenda endured in spite of social media.”
On the reassertion of the journalist's role - Trump Had One Last Story to Sell. The Wall Street Journal Wouldn’t Buy It.
"the last two weeks have proved ... that the old gatekeepers, like The Journal, can still control the agenda"
Either the biggest lie, or most unselfaware comment of the year: "This is '60 Minutes,' and we can’t put on things we can’t verify," Lesley Stahl told him.
Worthwhile analysis: "The media’s new and unfamiliar job is to provide a framework for understanding the wild, unvetted, and incredibly intoxicating information that its audience will inevitably see — not to ignore it.” — quoted by
Crackpot news stories matter only when they make it into the mainstream media
Trump Had One Last Story to Sell. The Wall Street Journal Wouldn't Buy It. - The New York Times
Great column from this week
on #journalism and the value of #gatekeeping. by
. highlights "a larger shift in the American media, one in which the gatekeepers appear to have returned after a long absence"
Enjoyed this article, both for the tick tock of how the WSJ article fell apart and the ruminations about what this says about the value of mainstream media gatekeeping on what stories are true and important
"There is a big difference between WikiLeaks and establishment media coverage of WikiLeaks, between a Trump tweet and an article about it, between an opinion piece in the suggesting Joe Biden had done bad things, and a news article that didn’t"
Trump Had One Last Story to Sell. The Wall Street Journal Wouldn’t Buy It. - NYT
Trump Had One Last Story to Sell. The Wall Street Journal Wouldn’t Buy It.
Trump Had One Last Story to Sell. The Wall Street Journal Wouldn’t Buy It.