Editing The Wall Street Journal (section)

====Scientific====
The ''Journal'' editorial pages were described as a "forum for [[climate change denial]]" in 2011 due to columns that attacked climate scientists and accused them of engaging in fraud.<ref>Multiple sources:
* {{cite journal |last1=Cook |first1=J. |last2=Nuccitelli |first2=D. |last3=Green |first3=S.A. |last4=Richardson |first4=M. |last5=Winkler |first5=B.R. |last6=Painting |first6=R. |last7=Way |first7=R. |last8=Jacobs |first8=P. |last9=Skuce |first9=A. |title=Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature |journal=Environmental Research Letters |year=2013 |volume=8 |issue=2 |page=024024 |doi=10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 |bibcode=2013ERL.....8b4024C |doi-access=free }}
* {{Cite news |last=Nordhaus |first=William D. |date=March 22, 2012 |title=Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong |language=en |work=New York Review of Books |url=https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/03/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/ |access-date=August 4, 2022 |issn=0028-7504 |archive-date=August 4, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220804021042/https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/03/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/ |url-status=live }}
* {{cite journal |last1=Supran |first1=Geoffrey |last2=Oreskes |first2=Naomi |author-link2=Naomi Oreskes |title=Assessing ExxonMobil's climate change communications (1977–2014) |journal=[[Environmental Research Letters]] |year=2017 |volume=12 |number=8 |pages=084019 |doi=10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f |bibcode=2017ERL....12h4019S |doi-access=free}}
* {{cite book |last=Powell |first=James Lawrence |title=The Inquisition of Climate Science |url=http://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-inquisition-of-climate-science/9780231157193 |publisher=Columbia University Press |date=2011 |isbn=9780231527842 |access-date=January 1, 2019 |archive-date=May 25, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190525020933/https://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-inquisition-of-climate-science/9780231157193 |url-status=live }}
* {{Cite journal|last1=Vardy|first1=Mark|last2=Oppenheimer|first2=Michael|last3=Dubash|first3=Navroz K.|last4=O'Reilly|first4=Jessica|last5=Jamieson|first5=Dale|date=October 17, 2017|title=The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Challenges and Opportunities|journal=Annual Review of Environment and Resources|language=en|volume=42|issue=1|pages=55–75|doi=10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-061053|issn=1543-5938|quote=One of the tactics successfully used to discredit climate science is typified by Frederick Seitz's 1996 commentary in ''The Wall Street Journal'' in which he argued that the IPCC did not follow its own rules for peer review. Subsequent analysis showed that the IPCC did not transgress any of its rules of peer review, which in fact are more rigorous than the standards of peer review that academic journals typically try to uphold|doi-access=free}}
* Karen Akerlof et al.: ''Communication of climate projections in US media amid politicization of model science''. [[Nature Climate Change]] 2, 2012, 648–654 {{doi|10.1038/nclimate1542}}.
* {{cite web |last=Nuccitelli |first=Dana |title=The Wall Street Journal denies the 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming |website=[[The Guardian]] |date=May 28, 2014 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/may/28/wall-street-journal-denies-global-warming-consensus |access-date=August 3, 2022 |archive-date=August 4, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220804012756/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/may/28/wall-street-journal-denies-global-warming-consensus |url-status=live }}
* {{cite web |last=Nuccitelli |first=Dana |title=The Wall Street Journal keeps peddling Big Oil propaganda |website=[[The Guardian]] |date=June 11, 2018 |url=http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jun/11/the-wall-street-journal-keeps-peddling-big-oil-propaganda |access-date=November 24, 2021 |archive-date=November 24, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211124184804/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jun/11/the-wall-street-journal-keeps-peddling-big-oil-propaganda |url-status=live }}
* Shaun W. Elsasser, Riley E. Dunlap: ''Leading Voices in the Denier Choir: Conservative Columnists' Dismissal of Global Warming and Denigration of Climate Science''. [[American Behavioral Scientist]] 57, No. 6, 2013, 754–776, {{doi|10.1177/0002764212469800}} "... and clearly  Fox, leading  conservative newspapers such as the WSJ ... provide powerful provide powerful fora for the promotion of climate change denial."
* {{cite web |last=Cassella |first=Carly |url=https://www.sciencealert.com/major-news-outlets-wall-street-journal-climate-denial-opinion-piece |title=The Wall Street Journal Still Treats Climate Change as "Opinion", And This Practice Needs to Stop |website=ScienceAlert |date=June 12, 2018 |access-date=August 3, 2022 |quote=For years, the WSJ has run opinion piece after opinion piece, questioning the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Too often, these "opinions" are written by authors with strong ties to the fossil fuel industry. In May of 2018, for example, the WSJ published an article that proclaimed, "Sea levels are rising, but not because of climate change." |archive-date=August 12, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220812094045/https://www.sciencealert.com/major-news-outlets-wall-street-journal-climate-denial-opinion-piece |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199566600.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199566600|title=The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society|work=OUP Academic |date=August 18, 2011|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-173527-1|language=en-US|doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199566600.001.0001|pages=125|editor1-last=Dryzek|editor1-first=John S|editor2-first=Richard B|editor2-last=Norgaard|editor3-first=David|editor3-last=Schlosberg|access-date=November 24, 2021|archive-date=June 27, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220627112433/https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199566600.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199566600|url-status=live}}</ref> A 2011 study found that the ''Journal'' was alone among major American print news media in how, mainly in its editorial pages, it adopted a [[false balance]] that overplayed the uncertainty in climate science or denied anthropogenic climate change altogether.<ref name="Feldman">{{Cite journal |last1=Feldman |first1=Lauren |last2=Hart |first2=P. Sol |last3=Milosevic |first3=Tijana |date=May 2017 |title=Polarizing news? Representations of threat and efficacy in leading US newspapers' coverage of climate change |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963662515595348 |journal=Public Understanding of Science |language=en |volume=26 |issue=4 |pages=481–497 |doi=10.1177/0963662515595348 |pmid=26229010 |hdl=10852/59799 |s2cid=32171406 |issn=0963-6625 |hdl-access=free |access-date=August 4, 2022 |archive-date=April 12, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220412002735/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963662515595348 |url-status=live }}</ref> That year, the [[Associated Press]] described the ''Journal''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s editorial pages as "a place friendly to climate change skeptics".<ref>{{cite news |url=https://globalnews.ca/news/171649/skeptics-own-study-finds-climate-change-real-but-says-scientists-should-be-more-critical/ |title=Skeptic's own study finds climate change real, but says scientists should be more critical |agency=Associated Press |first=Seth |last=Borenstein |date=October 30, 2011 |access-date=August 3, 2022 |archive-date=August 6, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220806221235/https://globalnews.ca/news/171649/skeptics-own-study-finds-climate-change-real-but-says-scientists-should-be-more-critical/ |url-status=live }}</ref> In 2013, the editorial board and other opinion writers vocally criticized President [[Barack Obama|Obama]]'s plan to address climate change, mostly without mentioning climate science.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Corneliussen |first=Steven T. |date=July 8, 2013 |title=Wall Street Journal opinion writers target President Obama's climate plan |url=https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.4.2500/full |journal=Physics Today |issue=7 |page=18350 |language=en |doi=10.1063/PT.4.2500 |bibcode=2013PhT..2013g8350C |access-date=August 3, 2022 |archive-date=August 3, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220803174729/https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.4.2500/full/ |url-status=live |url-access=subscription }}</ref> A 2015 study found ''The Wall Street Journal'' was the newspaper that was least likely to present negative [[effects of global warming]] among several newspapers. It was also the most likely to present negative economic framing when discussing [[climate change mitigation]] policies, tending to take the stance that the cost of such policies generally outweighs their benefit.<ref name="Feldman" />

[[Climate Feedback]], a fact-checking website on media coverage of climate science, determined that multiple opinion articles range between "low" and "very low" in terms of scientific credibility.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://science.feedback.org/outlet/the-wall-street-journal/?_topic=climate |title=Reviews of content from The Wall Street Journal |website=Science Feedback |publisher=Climate Feedback |access-date=September 16, 2024|archive-date=September 16, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240916024624/https://science.feedback.org/outlet/the-wall-street-journal/?_topic=climate |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=May 3, 2021 |author=Boris Bellanger |title=Wall Street Journal article repeats multiple incorrect and misleading claims made in Steven Koonin's new book 'Unsettled'|url=https://science.feedback.org/review/wall-street-journal-article-repeats-multiple-incorrect-and-misleading-claims-made-in-steven-koonins-new-book-unsettled-steven-koonin/ |access-date=September 16, 2024|website=Science Feedback |publisher=Climate Feedback |archive-date=September 16, 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240916024819/https://science.feedback.org/review/wall-street-journal-article-repeats-multiple-incorrect-and-misleading-claims-made-in-steven-koonins-new-book-unsettled-steven-koonin/ |url-status=live}}</ref> The Partnership for Responsible Growth stated in 2016 that 14% of the guest editorials on climate change presented the results of "mainstream climate science", while the majority did not. The Partnership also determined that none of the 201 editorials concerning climate change that were published in ''The Wall Street Journal'' since 1997 conceded that the burning of [[fossil fuel]]s is the main [[cause of climate change]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/wall-street-journal-accepts-environmentalist-ad-but-charges-extra/2016/06/13/422cd8e2-3199-11e6-95c0-2a6873031302_story.html|title=Wall Street Journal accepts environmentalist ad but charges extra|date=June 14, 2016|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|access-date=June 17, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160615120938/https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/wall-street-journal-accepts-environmentalist-ad-but-charges-extra/2016/06/13/422cd8e2-3199-11e6-95c0-2a6873031302_story.html|archive-date=June 15, 2016|url-status=live}}</ref>

In the 1980s and 1990s, the ''Journal'' published numerous opinion columns opposing and misrepresenting the scientific consensus on the harms of [[Passive smoking|second-hand smoke]],<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Bayer|first1=Ronald|last2=Colgrove|first2=James|date=2002|title=Science, Politics, and Ideology in the Campaign Against Environmental Tobacco Smoke |journal=American Journal of Public Health|volume=92|issue=6|pages=949–954|issn=0090-0036|pmc=1447493|pmid=12036788 |doi=10.2105/AJPH.92.6.949}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Lerbinger|first=Otto|title=Corporate Public Affairs: Interacting With Interest Groups, Media, and Government|date=August 15, 2006|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-135-59999-7|pages=161|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Rosenstock |first1=Linda |last2=Lee |first2=Lore Jackson |date=January 2002 |title=Attacks on Science: The Risks to Evidence-Based Policy |journal=American Journal of Public Health |language=en |volume=92 |issue=1 |pages=14–18 |doi=10.2105/AJPH.92.1.14 |issn=0090-0036 |pmc=1447376 |pmid=11772749}}</ref> [[acid rain]], and [[ozone depletion]],<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Taubes|first=Gary|date=June 11, 1993|title=The Ozone Backlash|url=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.260.5114.1580|journal=Science|volume=260|issue=5114|pages=1580–1583|doi=10.1126/science.260.5114.1580|pmid=17810191|bibcode=1993Sci...260.1580T|access-date=November 23, 2021|archive-date=November 23, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211123181846/https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.260.5114.1580|url-status=live|url-access=subscription}}</ref> in addition to public policy efforts to curb pesticides and asbestos.<ref name="handful">{{Cite book|last1=Oreskes|first1=Naomi|url=https://archive.org/details/merchantsofdoubt00ores|title=Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming|last2=Conway|first2=Erik M.|date=2010|publisher=Bloomsbury|isbn=9781608192939|pages=[https://archive.org/details/merchantsofdoubt00ores/page/94 94], 126, 135, 146, 208–213|url-access=registration}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Fleischer |first=Doris Z. |date=August 1993 |title=Silent Spring: Personal Synthesis of Two Cultures |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/027046769301300403 |journal=Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society |language=en |volume=13 |issue=4 |pages=200–202 |doi=10.1177/027046769301300403 |s2cid=144455619 |issn=0270-4676|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last1=Fagin |first1=Dan |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/40776758 |title=Toxic Deception |last2=Lavelle |first2=Marianne |date=1999 |publisher=Common Courage Press |isbn=1-56751-163-5 |edition=2nd |location=Monroe, Me. |pages=vii-viii |oclc=40776758 |author-link=Dan Fagin}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Page |first=Benjamin I. |date=July 1, 1995 |title=Speedy deliberation: Rejecting "1960s programs" as causes of the Los Angeles riots |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10584609.1995.9963072 |journal=Political Communication |language=en |volume=12 |issue=3 |pages=245–261 |doi=10.1080/10584609.1995.9963072 |issn=1058-4609 |access-date=August 3, 2022 |archive-date=January 14, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230114112810/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584609.1995.9963072 |url-status=live |url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last1=McCulloch |first1=Jock |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=G1cVDAAAQBAJ |title=Defending the Indefensible: The Global Asbestos Industry and Its Fight for Survival |last2=Tweedale |first2=Geoffrey |date=July 24, 2008 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-953485-2 |pages=183 |language=en}}</ref> The ''Journal'' later recognized that efforts to curb acid rain through cap-and-trade had been successful, a decade after the Clean Air Act Amendments.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|url=https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2012/08/02/the-wall-street-journal-dismissing-environmenta/189063|title=The Wall Street Journal: Dismissing Environmental Threats Since 1976|date=August 1, 2012|website=Media Matters for America|access-date=January 1, 2019|archive-date=January 2, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190102050556/https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2012/08/02/the-wall-street-journal-dismissing-environmenta/189063|url-status=live}}</ref>