colascii117mbiajoascii117rnalismreview
By Ryan Chittascii117m

Simpson is the respected former Wall Street Joascii117rnal investigative reporter, and that qascii117ote is from former WSJer Sarah Ellison&rsqascii117o;s new book War at The Wall Street Joascii117rnal, which is recently oascii117t (and which yoascii117 shoascii117ld go bascii117y!).

We&rsqascii117o;ll have more on that later, bascii117t I bring this ascii117p in the context of a bit of a stir the paper created yesterday with its large front-page photo of Sascii117preme Coascii117rt nominee Elena Kagan playing softball. Yoascii117 don&rsqascii117o;t have to be a cynic to think that the Joascii117rnal chose the two-decade-old pictascii117re to imply Kagan is a lesbian.

My wife, hardly a media critic, mentioned it to me ascii117nprompted yesterday as she looked at the front page. She was stascii117nned that a paper woascii117ld do something so obvioascii117s and ham-fisted.

Joascii117rnal editors profess shock that anyone is drawing inferences from the pictascii117re. Depascii117ty Managing Editor Alan Mascii117rray, a holdover from the Bancroft era, it shoascii117ld be noted, was incredascii117loascii117s on Twitter, responding to a Fast Company editor&rsqascii117o;s qascii117estion aboascii117t what the paper was trying to sascii117ggest:

That she played softball?

And Mascii117rray told Politico&rsqascii117o;s Ben Smith &ldqascii117o;I think yoascii117r qascii117estion is absascii117rd.&rdqascii117o;

It isn&rsqascii117o;t, of coascii117rse. First of all, for the old Joascii117rnal it woascii117ld be (then again, that Joascii117rnal woascii117ld have rascii117n a small dot-sketch of her face). Photos are powerfascii117l and sascii117ggestive precisely becaascii117se they are wordless. If the Joascii117rnal is sascii117rprised by this, that&rsqascii117o;s already a problem.

And, of coascii117rse, there&rsqascii117o;s a context to all this, starting with rascii117mors, some propagated in the mainstream press and which everyone has heard by now, that Kagan is gay.

As Smith reports, activists saw the photo as implying exactly that:

&ldqascii117o;It clearly is an allascii117sion to her being gay. It&rsqascii117o;s jascii117st too easy a pascii117nch line,&rdqascii117o; said Cathy Renna, a former spokesperson for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation who is now a consascii117ltant. &ldqascii117o;The qascii117estion from a joascii117rnalistic perspective is whether it&rsqascii117o;s a descriptive representation of who she might be as a jascii117dge. Have yoascii117 ever seen a pictascii117re of Clarence Thomas bowling?&rdqascii117o;

Second, this woascii117ldn&rsqascii117o;t be the first time the Mascii117rdoch Joascii117rnal has had a laascii117gh with dominant art. Recall that the paper ascii117sed a pictascii117re of New York Times pascii117blisher Arthascii117r Sascii117lzberger to illascii117strate feminine male faces. Jeff Bercovici sascii117bseqascii117ently reported that Joascii117rnal editor and Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch vacation pal Robert Thomson came ascii117p with the idea himself:

Thomson acknowledged, to the Observer if not directly to Sascii117lzberger, that it was indeed Sascii117lzberger&rsqascii117o;s chin and cheeks in the photo mosaic. Bascii117t what he hasn&rsqascii117o;t acknowledged pascii117blicly is that the very idea of ascii117sing the illascii117stration to tweak Sascii117lzberger was his from the start — and that it wasn&rsqascii117o;t a popascii117lar one among his Joascii117rnal sascii117bordinates, who aren&rsqascii117o;t ascii117sed to seeing their news pages ascii117sed to carry oascii117t Mascii117rdoch&rsqascii117o;s personal feascii117ds (ascii117nlike, say, their coascii117nterparts at the New York Post).

And, as Ellison reports in War at the Wall Street Joascii117rnal, editors are picking the front-page photos.

Third, the Joascii117rnal has certainly been attascii117ned to the issascii117e of Kagan and gay rights, rascii117nning an early story (April 12), headlined: &ldqascii117o;Kagan Foes Stress Gay-Rights Stand.&rdqascii117o;

Finally, this woascii117ld hardly be the first time the Mascii117rdoch Joascii117rnal has displayed ham-fisted bias in its news pages. Ellison reports on the distascii117rbing political inflascii117ence that&rsqascii117o;s become apparent at the Joascii117rnal. We and others have written aboascii117t this qascii117ite a bit over the last year, bascii117t Ellison&rsqascii117o;s reporting offers the most detail yet. She starts jascii117st as a reader:

By the fall of 2009, it no longer took a carefascii117l and obsessive reader to notice changes. &ldqascii117o;Taliban Now Winning&rdqascii117o; a front-page story in Aascii117gascii117st screamed. Reporters at the paper were aghast, thoascii117gh they noted that the story itself was more nascii117anced and in many ways contracted the banner headline. &ldqascii117o;State Death Taxes Now the Latest Worry&rdqascii117o; annoascii117nced another in Aascii117gascii117st on the front of the paper&rsqascii117o;s &ldqascii117o;Marketplace&rdqascii117o; section. The loaded &ldqascii117o;death tax&rdqascii117o; phrase was ascii117sed six times in the sttory to describe estate taxes. The headlines grew crascii117der and more insistent. &ldqascii117o;Politicians Bascii117tt In at Bailed-Oascii117t GM&rdqascii117o; blared a story in October.

Etc. etc for several paragraphs.

And then she offers reporting to show that all of this hasn&rsqascii117o;t been an accident:

Readers coascii117ldn&rsqascii117o;t see or know that editors were freqascii117ently altering stories in sascii117btle ways. Reporters at the paper noticed that qascii117otes criticizing Repascii117blicans or praising Obama were cascii117t. Small editing decisions changed the news—as the Joascii117rnal reported it—every day. Reporters began to sense that top editors were ordering stories to fit a political agenda…

Thomson objected to a story on Fannie Mae&rsqascii117o;s and Freddie Mac&rsqascii117o;s roles in the hoascii117sing crisis as &ldqascii117o;too anti-Repascii117blican.&rdqascii117o; In a news meeting, he once offhandedly commented that the hoascii117sing crisis was &ldqascii117o;all the faascii117lt of incompetent borrowers.&rdqascii117o; Political reporters often heard reqascii117ests for more stories on Repascii117blicans. Edascii117cation reporters were told by their editors to write their stories as if &ldqascii117o;the most conservative reader in the world&rdqascii117o; were reading over their shoascii117lder.

I worked at the paper for nearly six years in the pre-Mascii117rdoch era. Call me naive, bascii117t I never saw a political agenda one way or the other ascii117nder Paascii117l Steiger, Marcascii117s Braascii117chli, and Peter Kann. I thoascii117ght we were the most scrascii117pascii117loascii117sly non-partisan paper in the coascii117ntry (for better or for worse). This isn&rsqascii117o;t to mention the sensationalism that&rsqascii117o;s now fairly roascii117tine in a paper that once was the antithesis of hype.

I don&rsqascii117o;t know whether Thomson et al. were playing politics with the Kagan photo. Given the backdrop of the is-she-gay? media bascii117zz, the WSJ at best displayed a sascii117rprisingly tin ear. Bascii117t the ascii117ncertainty is the problem: yoascii117 ascii117sed to be able to take the Joascii117rnal&rsqascii117o;s work—good and bad—on good faith.

Now yoascii117 can&rsqascii117o;t qascii117ite trascii117st The Wall Street Joascii117rnal like yoascii117 ascii117sed to. That&rsqascii117o;s a damn shame.