By Arthur Alpert
Most mornings, I read the Albuquerque Journal over breakfast, then turn to the computer to sample the Washington Post and NY Times.
The Post’s news stories are all over the lot, leaving me with no clue as to what the Post’s editorials will say.
The same is true of the NY Times; the stories and the editorials don’t cohere.
I don’t read the Wall Street Journal every day, but when I pick it up I find (even under Murdoch) that its news columns aren’t in synch with its editorial page.
Only the Albuquerque Journal allows me to trace a bold, colorful line from its “news” pages to its editorial stance. And backwards. Tracing the pattern is fun, sometimes so satisfying I almost forget it’s not journalism. Or, to couch it in positive terms, it’s evidence Journal management publishes a daily political broadsheet disguised as a newspaper.
And if you think that’s overstated, well, you have not been following the Journal’s campaign against poor Donald Trump, which reached its apotheosis Wednesday, Sept. 30, with an Associated Press “Fact Check” on Trump’s tax plan on A5.
There had been a few news stories leaning anti-Trump and a few anti-Trump opinion pieces and even an editorial slapping him (August 5) but this study of Mr. Trump’s tax plan soared above. You see, Jeff Horwitz’s analysis said the scheme “would also be likely to help the wealthy – including people like himself.”
Predictably, the Journal ignored his lead and headlined Horwitz’ conclusion that “Math in Trump’s tax plan doesn’t add up”. However, in the second deck, a Journal editor wrote:
“Often, wealthy will benefit the most.”
Unbelievable! Unprecedented! The Journal’s second-deck rubric actually referred to the rich getting richer. And the editors ran it over a story that questioned redistributing wealth upwards by way of the tax code.
Lordy, Lordy, how great is the Journal hierarchy’s hatred or fear of The Donald? Sufficiently so that the editors would, to denigrate him, contradict the Journal’s own basic narrative? Yes, I think so.