Wall Street Journal runs unsupported Obama-shakeup story, then stonewalls questions

Just ahead of last week’s election the Wall Street Journal reported that “high-level Democrats” were calling for President Obama “to remake his inner circle or even fire top advisers” in the face of an imminent drubbing at the polls.

But an error report on MediaBugs flagged a conspicuous problem with the story: It contained no evidence supporting the claim in its headline and first paragraph. Not a single one of the eight people quoted in the piece called for Obama “to remake his inner circle” or “fire top advisers.” (Read the story here.)

Over the past week we contacted the Journal five times seeking a response to the error report. We emailed a reporter, a managing editor and a general address designated for reporting errors to the newsroom. We also called the phone number listed with corrections info in the print edition. We haven’t received any response.

This isn’t the first time we’ve encountered a void when trying to reach the Journal about an error report. And while the previous instance involved a minor mistake, this one is more substantial.

It isn’t just that we think a reasonable error report deserves a response. It’s in the Journal’s best interest to provide one.

Surely more than one Journal reader wondered why there were no quotes to back up the story’s headline and premise. With no explanation from the newsroom, all we can do is speculate. It’s possible that the reporters spoke with “high-level Democrats” who said they wanted Obama to fire top advisers, but who would only say so off the record. (In which case the article might have explained that.) Or it’s possible an editor chose to punch up the opening and add a headline intended to attract maximum eyeballs. Maybe somebody at the Journal was eager to suggest a dramatic loss of confidence in Obama on the eve of a big election — after all, ever since Rupert Murdoch bought the paper, critics have been identifying a rightward slant in its news pages. (See, for example, The Atlantic, the New York Times, and many other sources.)

It’s also possible that the above explanations aren’t remotely accurate. We just don’t know.

Which, of course, is exactly the point. A Wall Street Journal reader raised a legitimate question; by failing to respond, the paper has left a void for its readers to fill with suspicion and surmise. (Journal readers may have noticed that no top advisers have departed the administration since the election; meanwhile, subsequent reports from Politico and NPR indicate that changes at the White House are likely to involve the “reshuffling of a relatively small cast of Obama insiders” and that “nobody expects an inrush of new blood.” Still, even the departure tomorrow of the entire White House staff would not answer the questions raised by the Journal story.)

When MediaBugs reaches out to newsroom managers about an error report, we explain that our aim is to help close the feedback loop, often inadequate, between the public and newsrooms. (Read our newly published national survey of news sites to see just how inadequate that feedback loop typically is.) We don’t tell editors whether they should run a clarification or correction — that remains up to them to decide and to articulate to the public.

In the pre-Internet age, it was easy for a news organization to control a conversation in the public view about its journalistic practices, or simply to ignore it altogether. Today, the conversation about journalism is everywhere; that’s the case whether or not a news organization chooses to engage with it. When it comes to championing accuracy, the best way forward is to be accessible, transparent and engaged with the public.

Updated Nov. 11, 2010: We received a response this afternoon from an assistant managing editor saying that the Journal “fundamentally disagrees” with the error report. Read the full response here.

Report an Error Report an error


  1. Say, if you’re looking for some WSJ response, isn’t Alix Freedman your best bet? At one time, she was “standards editor.” Also a “deputy managing editor.” She might still have those titles. Not sure.

    Sounds like you’ve been trying to get a comment from Robert Thomson, the managing editor. He’s a very busy man. It’s hard to imagine him creating time in his schedule to help with this sort of story dissection by an outside party. Not what he does.

  2. @Footloose – Thanks for your comment. As detailed in the the error report itself (see the comments section, via the first link in this post) we tried several different avenues in seeking a response from the Journal’s newsroom. (Robert Thomson was not one of them.) That’s a key issue here: the Journal isn’t very accessible, it seems, when it comes to reporting an error. The designated email and phone info it provides apparently isn’t very useful. And aside from that, there is no indication of who specifically to contact or who might be in charge of handling the matter.


  1. [...] has been working this one, but with no response from the Journal to date. A blog post by my colleague Mark Follman explains the situation: Just ahead of last week’s election the Wall Street Journal reported [...]

  2. [...] his inner circle. We sought a response from the Journal, and when we didn’t get one, we made a little noise about [...]

  3. [...] The point of slogging through this tale isn’t to pick on CNN, but rather to illuminate an endemic problem. CNN.com is hardly alone in its inaccessibility and unresponsiveness, as MediaBugs’ recently published national survey of news sites reveals. We’ve had similar experiences reporting errors via MediaBugs with Fox News, the LA Daily News, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. [...]

  4. [...] some effort on MediaBugs’ part, we received a response from the Journal’s assistant managing editor [...]

  5. [...] thus far the Journal has been unresponsive to inquiries about Yoo’s piece, and its newsroom has proven inaccessible on such matters in prior [...]

  6. [...] thus far the Journal has been unresponsive to inquiries about Yoo’s piece, and its newsroom has proven inaccessible on such matters in prior [...]

Speak Your Mind