I’m Sure It’s All a Coincidence

Why did the Wall Street Journal go to bat for Alito? I think I have the answer.

Source: ProPublica

---

---

One of the byproducts of spending years on a trading desk with a half dozen flat screens in front of me is that I developed an almost OCD-level reflex to gather data. In many respects, this is a useful skill in writing. As a result, I’ve ended up with more cloud folders and browser tabs than I hope to use. On the other hand, my digital hoarding serves as my own personal Wayback Machine when the spirit hits me.

Those of you who follow SCOTUS news may recall Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s June 2023 Wall Street Journal op-ed entitled, “ProPublica Misleads Its Readers,” which landed hours before that outlet released a report detailing how Justice Alito had accepted a previously unreported trip to an Alaska fishing resort on the private jet of billionaire and GOP donor Paul Singer, who later had a case before the Court.

Based on ProPublica‘s reporting, had Alito chartered a similar jet personally, the excursion would have cost him around $200,000 round trip. (Side note: Although Singer was the primary funding source for the Washington Free Beacon’s hiring of Fusion GPS, the source of the infamous Steele Dossier, in 2024, he donated $5 million to Trump’s reelection campaign.)

Later that same day, the Journal’s editorial board defended its decision to run Alito’s defense of a story that had yet to be published (emphasis added):

“We should add a word about our own role here. The press is in a lather because we ran Justice Alito’s response to ProPublica’s questions as an op-ed on Tuesday evening before the ProPublica article appeared. One classic headline from Wednesday in Politico: “Alito picks a fight with ProPublica.” The Justice defends himself against a phony ethics assault from the press, and he’s the one picking the fight?

Justice Alito clearly wanted his defense to receive public disclosure in full, not edited piecemeal. We saw ProPublica’s list of 18 questions and had a good idea of where the reporters were going. The story proved us right.”

Setting aside the fact that Alito shared ProPublica’s work product with another news organization, in my view, the Wall Street Journal’s decision to allow its publication to be used as a tool for front-running another publication’s investigation that had yet to be released bordered on journalistic malpractice. I’d intended to write a piece along those lines but never got around to it.

The Supreme Court’s potential role in upcoming decisions reminded me of an interesting set of facts I encountered when I researched the Alito incident. I wondered then, and still do, whether or not it had anything to do with the Journal’s decision making at the time.

In April of 2007, Paul Steiger, who had been the managing editor of the Wall Street Journal since 1991, was succeeded by Marcus W. Brauchli as required by the organization’s corporate policy. The 64-year-old Steiger transitioned to the role of editor-at-large at the Journal and was set to retire at year end. The following August, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation acquired the Journal as part of its $5 billion purchase of Dow Jones & Company. Two months later, Pro Publica was founded by Herbert M. and Marion O. Sandler, wealthy donors to the Democratic Party.

The GOP’s Big Rookie-Doo

News of what was then considered a journalistic experiment was announced with the revelation that the person hired by the Sandler’s to launch their investigative journalism project and serve as its editor-in-chief, president, and CEO was—you guessed it—the Wall Street Journal’s Paul Steiger. At the time of Alito’s op-ed, Steiger had moved his original position to become ProPublica’s executive chairman, a position he currently holds.

Maybe Steiger’s decision to switch journalistic teams rather than be put out to pasture had nothing to do with the Journal being acquired by the same media conglomerate that owns Fox News and the New York Post, both Republican-leaning media outlets.

And perhaps the fact that its former managing editor helped a pair of wealthy Democratic donors launch ProPublica, which went on to become the first online news source to win a Pulitzer Prize a few years later, had nothing to do with why the Wall Street Journal allowed a Supreme Court justice to use its publication as a cudgel against another news organization.

Maybe it’s all a big coincidence. If you believe in that sort of thing.