When a Pillar of the Fourth Estate Rests on a Trump-Murdoch Axis

Mr. Trump’s daughter Ivanka was a trustee of the nearly $300 million fortune Mr. Murdoch set aside for the two children he had with his third wife, Wendi, who arranged the trusteeship.

Ms. Trump gave up that oversight role in December, before her father’s inauguration but well after Election Day.

.. That means the whole time that Mr. Murdoch’s highly influential news organizations were covering Mr. Trump’s campaign and transition, their executive chairman was entangled in a financial arrangement of the most personal sort — tied to his children’s financial (very) well being — along with the president’s daughter.

.. And she is married to a key presidential adviser, Jared Kushner, who, as it happens, is so close with Mr. Murdoch that he even helped Mr. Murdoch set up his bachelor pad after his last divorce

.. The latest news about the Murdoch-Trump axis is acutely problematic for the leadership at The Wall Street Journal — owned by News Corp. — as it seeks to quell a rebellion by a group of staff members who believe that the paper has held them back from more aggressively covering Mr. Trump, they suspect, under pressure from Mr. Murdoch.

.. In the George W. Bush years, when Fox News rallied for the president’s war efforts, Mr. Murdoch successfully pushed the Federal Communications Commission to block a proposed merger between DirecTV and EchoStar, clearing the way for Mr. Murdoch to buy control of DirecTV after an earlier attempt.

.. Stephen K. Bannon, a Trump adviser, made a similar observation in an interview with the media writer Michael Wolff shortly after the election, saying, “Rupert is a globalist and never understood Trump.”

.. With the loss of the 9 p.m. host Megyn Kelly, the network’s prime time has become that much friendlier for Mr. Trump.

.. concerns among some — and certainly not all — members of the staff that the paper is tilting Mr. Trump’s way erupted anew two weeks ago when Mr. Baker wrote to editors asking them to avoid describing the countries affected by Mr. Trump’s immigration order as “majority Muslim,” which was in keeping with Mr. Trump’s talking points.

The Wall Street Journal’s Global Retrenchment

The newspaper is cutting staff and shuttering bureaus, even as populism, trade, and international relations are in the headlines.

Restive news staffers have gone on background to reporters to complain about what they see as editor-in-chief Gerry Baker’s overly sympathetic leanings toward Trump; on the opinion side, an op-ed editor was recently forced out of the paper after conflict over the page’s Trump stance.

.. It’s “pretty grim and pretty depressing,” said that reporter, who like others spoke on condition of anonymity. Several cited agreements they had signed when their employment was terminated.

.. The reporter also mentioned the concerns over Trump coverage, saying Baker’s ordering editors to not refer to Trump’s controversial travel ban as barring those from “majority Muslim” countries as something that was “obviously not taken very well by reporters [overseas].”

.. Additionally, there was scant information shared internally in the company about the layoffs.

“Absolutely nothing,” the former reporter from the Eastern European bureau said. “All whispering between people who’d been laid off and other people.”

Trump’s Refugee Bonfire

A blunderbuss order sows confusion and a defeat in court.

Mr. Trump campaigned on a promise of “extreme vetting” for refugees from countries with a history of terrorism, and his focus on protecting Americans has popular support. But his refugee ban is so blunderbuss and broad, and so poorly explained and prepared for, that it has produced confusion and fear at airports, an immediate legal defeat, and political fury at home and abroad. Governing is more complicated than a campaign rally.

.. The President has wide discretion over refugee policies, and the overall Trump order is no doubt legal. But surely someone in the executive branch knew that anyone who touches down on U.S. soil is entitled to some due process before summary removal.

.. Opponents of the policy pounced to sue in several jurisdictions, and no fewer than four judges have rebuked the order in some way. One government lawyer who had to defend the White House position couldn’t explain why those detained were a security threat or why they weren’t at risk if they were sent back to their native countries.

.. But by suspending all entries from seven Muslim-majority nations, it lets the jihadists portray the order as applying to all Muslims even though it does not. The smarter play would have been simply to order more diligent screening without a blanket ban.

.. The order also fails to make explicit exceptions for Iraqis, Afghans and others who have fought side by side with Americans. These include translators and others who helped save American lives and whose own lives may now be at risk for assisting GIs.
The U.S. will fight wars in foreign lands in the future, and we will need local allies who will be watching how we treat Iraqis, Kurds and other battle comrades now.
.. The U.S. is in a long war with jihadists that is as much ideological as military. The U.S. needs Muslim allies, while the jihadists want to portray America as the enemy of all Muslims. Overly broad orders send the wrong signal to millions of Muslims who aren’t jihadists but who might be vulnerable to recruitment if they conclude the U.S. is at war with Islam, rather than with Islamist radicals.