It seems the WSJ has a growing problem.

Doug Sheridan Says

It seems the WSJ has a growing problem. It’s not the kind of problem that makes headlines or sells papers. It’s the kind of problem that creeps up slowly, subtly, until one day you find you’ve lost something precious—your credibility.

You see, WSJ news journalists have developed a bias. It colors their choice of words, their framing of stories, their selection of what's newsworthy and what's not. It's one that increasingly favors a certain narrative, and appears driven by ideology, not by journalism.

Consider two recent examples. The first concerns the earthquake that struck Morocco, a magnitude 6.8 that was one of the strongest ever recorded in the nation. It's killed at least 1,000 people. Entire villages have been lost. Landslides have wrecked havoc. It's a humanitarian disaster.

How has the WSJ report this tragedy? With headlines that read: "Powerful Quake in Morocco Kills More Than 1,000.” The sub-headline added: “An uncommonly powerful earthquake struck Morocco, setting off a scramble to rescue trapped survivors in a North African country that is a popular tourist destination.”

Uncommonly powerful... popular tourist destination. These are the words the WSJ news editors chose to describe a catastrophe that's devastated a poor and vulnerable country.

Now contrast this with the run up to hurricane Idalia that recently hit Florida, eventually killing fewer than five people. The WSJ reported this event with a headline that read, “Hurricane Idalia Strengthens, Threatens Catastrophic Storm Surge.”

Catastrophic. This is a word that editors chose to describe a would-be Category 3 storm that affected a wealthy and resilient country... and eventually took fewer than five lives.

So why this difference in tone and emphasis? The answer seems simple—the WSJ editors now have a climate change bias. They believe climate change is real, man-made, and immediate. They believe hurricanes are caused or worsened by global warming. They believe fossil fuels are to blame for the rise in temps and sea levels. No doubt they believe we need to *act now* to save the planet.

There's nothing wrong with having these beliefs. Many people share them. Many scientists support them. But there is something wrong with letting these beliefs interfere with your journalistic duty. There is something wrong with sacrificing accuracy for advocacy. There is something wrong with appearing to color the news to fit a fear narrative.

We've been reading the WSJ for over three decades. We used to respect immensely its reporting and analysis. We used to trust implicitly its news sources and data. We used to admire its balance and objectivity. All less so today.

To Sum It Up: The new Editor in Chief on the WSJ news desk, even more so than the prior, has seemingly boarded the “climate-change explains many things” train. It's left the station, gathering speed, and on track to hurt the credibility of a once-great publication. What a shame.