A demand (paras 6-7) that guest opinion pieces not "selectively present facts" or "cherry-pick studies" to reach "erroneous conclusions" is a demand that no op-ed page in the country could meet if applied objectively across the board. I doubt it would be applied that way. /2
-
-
Show this thread
-
Para 14, which invokes employee recruitment, makes clear that details of the
@HMDatMI piece aside, they believe no piece disputing the idea of systemic police racism should be published in Opinion, whatever new arguments or line of evidence it might offer. /3Show this thread -
Para 13 condemns a tweet by an outside writer (not staffer) whose contributions were allowed to resume after months. Absent more facts it's hard to judge, but I wonder what stopping principle applies to demands for perma-bans over tweets that did not appear in the WSJ. /4
Show this thread -
Some have praised the letter for leading with a relatively innocuous demand, for clearer marking of news vs. opinion content. But taken as a whole, it demands not just that, or more rigor/fact checking, but that the WSJ stop publishing certain opinions & certain writers. /5, efn
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Excellent thread. I read the Journal every day. Readers of the WSJ know opinion when they see it. it is not on the front page, which happens at other publications. I see all sides in the Op-Ed & letters sections.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.