From an F, the WSJ Editors now get a D

Bravo! The Wall Street Journal editors are beginning to show a higher aptitude for learning how to write better editorials. They still have a long way to go, but doing so well as to be upgraded from the level of an F to that of a D, is an achievement that no one should dismiss.

The occasion is the editorial they wrote under the title: “Obama's Terror Sangfroid” and the subtitle: “The threat isn't 'existential,' unless you're at Starbucks.” It was published on January 15, 2016 in the Journal. Having gotten it through their heads that existential threat means a threat that has the potential to vanquish its victims, the editors retracted their claim that ISIS can vanquish the United States of America. And they replaced the absurd notion with one that says ISIS can end the existence of someone sipping coffee at Starbucks, for example.

There was a time when those same editors would “double down” on their absurdity when told about the errors in logic they used to make. That's when you knew they did not even have the aptitude to learn, therefore could not be taught to think rationally or write editorials that made sense. That posture seems to be changing, and if the editors continue to improve, they should get to the level of a C+ fairly soon – this being the minimum requirement to move from being a glorified supermarket tabloid to that of a mainstream publication.

To get there, however, they will have to fix the most serious of their weaknesses. It is the inability to stay focused on the main subject where they need to probe in depth. Rather than doing this, they often skim over the central topic, and seek to buttress their argument by stealing “energy” form one or more related topics.

Here is an example of what they did wrong this time. They quoted Obama saying: “claims that this is World War III plays into their hands.” And they refuted that as follows: “It isn't clear what Mr. Obama means by 'World War III,' but attacks against targets on four continents probably sounds global to the victims.”

Well, Obama did say 'claims' which means he was talking – not about his definition of World War III but – about someone else's definition. And they, who have the resources of the Journal, should have known he meant the Pope. In fact, many people who do not have the resources of the Journal know that much. Thus, it must be said that the editors committed an error of judgment that reduces their credibility.

And if you ask why they left the main topic to go on a tangent of this deviation, you find the answer in this: “attacks against targets on four continents sounds global to the victims.” Well, there are car accidents on six continents, and nobody calls the phenomenon a global epidemic. Also, because the main topic is supposed to be some kind of an “existential threat,” the readers will inevitably link the two topics, and come to believe that the editors are saying: Because the terrorist attacks happened on four continents, they represent an existential threat to all of humanity. However, people everywhere know instinctively that this cannot be true.

As if that were not enough, the editors of the Journal continue to “steal” energy that turns out to be useless to them, by quoting faceless experts and nameless officials. Here are two examples: First, “Counter-terrorist experts are warning that November's massacre was only a 'dress-rehearsal.'” Second, “'We are moving towards a European 9/11,' one French official recently told AFP.” All that makes the editors stand on shaky grounds, and diminishes the effectiveness of the points they make. They cannot be praised.

Moreover, what they do next contributes much to putting a distance between them and their chances at getting a higher grade. Here is what they said: “It would be foolish to rule out a similar attack in the U.S., which makes Mr. Obama's terror sangfroid wrong-headed and politically misjudged.”

Well, 9/11 did happen once, and America did not cease to exist. In fact, the presiding executive at the time, George W. Bush, advised his people to go out, shop and have a good time as if nothing had happened. His reason was that to do so, will deny the terrorists the victory they sought by inflicting fear on the nation.

More than fourteen years later, the new presiding executive, Barack Obama, is advising his people to do the same. Equipped with a solid moral compass, the editors of the Wall Street Journal saw the wisdom of that advice the first time. They fail to see it this time. Thus, the following three questions: What happened to the editors' moral compass? Has someone robbed them of it? Who might that be?