The Wall Street Journal was raked over the coals after an outrageous take on the deadly Jersey City shooting.
But a not-so-sorry apology that followed just threw more gasoline on the fire as readers blasted the publication for its “appalling” and “insensitive” framing of the story.
Saved it for you guys pic.twitter.com/4Fk3He0L3l
— AJ (@AK_ND9) December 12, 2019
Soon after posting it, the Wall Street Journal deleted a tweet on the mass shooting by two people in New Jersey on Tuesday at a kosher grocery store.
Screenshots of the tweet were captured, however, and shared on social media where Twitter users lambasted the news outlet.
What kind of creative process did you go through on your way to settling on this tweet https://t.co/fo65OLTXYC
— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) December 12, 2019
This is grotesque.
— (((Ami Schreiber))) (@shribr) December 12, 2019
Yowsa.
— lrgeller (@lrgeller) December 12, 2019
The tone of this tweet is disturbing. Someone at the WSJ has explaining to do.
— Paul Ladd (@PaulLadd1) December 12, 2019
But apparently it wasn’t just the tweet that the Wall Street Journal got wrong.
Wait until you read the article ?
— Stat and Melo (@StatandMelo1) December 12, 2019
Oh no, it’s not just the tweet?
— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) December 12, 2019
I wouldn’t have included these parts, but that’s just me. Life is complicated, yes- But there’s a time to be respectful the victims of a hate filled attack, and time to solve structural problems. pic.twitter.com/lul6hGS8mM
— Virginia Readjuster (@VAReadjuster89) December 12, 2019
@WSJ Are you kidding me?
— coop (@rumrunnercoop) December 12, 2019
Oh but it gets so much worse pic.twitter.com/Ld1eflk9hU
— Leib (@YehudahRodman) December 12, 2019
The publication was blasted for “victim-blaming” as Twitter users responded with a universal face-palm.
Victim blaming and so much more.
— T.S.O’Neil ❌❌ (@tselliot3) December 12, 2019
good to know that the wsj is also antisemitic
— yossi ojalvo (@yossi_oj) December 12, 2019
I would expect this kind of BS from the NYT
— Mary Vanek (@mevanek007) December 12, 2019
The tweet was deleted after the initial outrage.
The @WSJ removed the tweet and modified the problematic subhead that seemed say blacks were the real victims of the shooting pic.twitter.com/KuQP45SoiN
— Elder Of Ziyon ҉ (@elderofziyon) December 12, 2019
They’ve deleted the tweet ?
— The Progressive Conservative (@GiorgioCritics) December 12, 2019
But the subsequent tweet explaining its earlier “insensitively described” post did little to win over angry readers.
An attack that left six people dead, including the two suspected shooters, has shaken a neighborhood of Jews and African-Americans. An earlier tweet, which has been deleted, insensitively described the situation. https://t.co/MtRHqXH8rJ
— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) December 12, 2019
Although the tweet was revised, the content of the article still remained untouched, a fact that readers quickly brought up.
I suspect that the authors ( I won’t name them), and whatever nameless editors approved the headline and then lightly edited it, neither understand not care why people are disappointed and upset with this bullshit.
— Rando baizuo reply guy @!3( (@AlecKLevine) December 12, 2019
They didnt change the article though.
— Mjl7atlas (@mjl7atlas) December 12, 2019
And yet the tweet you deleted didn’t prompt you to alter the actual text of the article. Hmm ?
Appalling. pic.twitter.com/W4U5uNm24W
— Dani Klein ?? Yeah That’s Kosher (@YeahThatsKosher) December 12, 2019
You mean you insensitively described the situation like the article STILL DOES? pic.twitter.com/1jIjjkLoCm
— Restive Rabble (@RestiveRabble) December 12, 2019
Twitter users continued to pillory the Wall Street Journal for its not a very thorough apology.
If you changed the text of the story, which still contains an insensitive & bigoted statement, it would be a full apology.
Yes, there have been demographic changes throughout the region. To seemingly justify violence because of it, is more than just insensitive, its outrageous.
— Joel M. Petlin (@Joelmpetlin) December 12, 2019
Yeah, it was more than “insensitive”. pic.twitter.com/coretuRKV3
— Hacker Holdings LLC ? (@HoldMyGlencairn) December 12, 2019
Altering the tweet, acknowledging it was insensitive but leaving the article intact? So many levels of bad. Especially seeing as the wording in the horrific tweet was pulled from the piece! No, please, not WSJ.
— IMissJournalism (@JournalismMiss) December 12, 2019
So sorry you guys got caught being utterly terrible again. I feel for yah. pic.twitter.com/McXqHST3e4
— Christmas TrEeyore (@someguymusing) December 12, 2019
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
[email protected]
Originally from New York, Powers graduated from New York University and eventually made her way to sunny South Florida where she has been writing for the BizPacReview team since 2015.
- WATCH: Pro-Palestine NYU protester does not know why she’s protesting – friend equally clueless - April 24, 2024
- Rubio: ‘Foreign aid’ bill provides over $3.5B to help bring migrants from the Middle East to US - April 24, 2024
- Jesse Watters: Biden forgives violinist’s screeching $250k student loan debt - April 24, 2024
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
BPR INSIDER COMMENTS
Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member. We'd love to have you!
