We often refer to the authoritative newspapers of the West, and especially of America. The few newspapers that in the clamor of the ‘media’ we trust for our information.

‘It was written,’ we say, ‘in the New York Times,’ or the ‘Wall Street Journal,’ or the ‘Washington Post.’ And since it was written in those newspapers, it must be true – or very close to it.

We read these newspapers – regardless of whether they are (still) in print or only (or mainly) in electronic form – even when we disagree with them. Firstly, because they are not completely one-sided and, secondly, because we respect their opinion.

It is useful and necessary to know how the other side thinks. After all, the truth is almost never absolute. Things in life are almost never black or white.

In short, these newspapers respect their readers. They look to the economic future of their newspapers and not just their profit in the present.

I wrote this editorial’s introduction to say the following: The Wall Street Journal is a newspaper I have been reading for decades.

In recent years, owned by Rupert Murdoch, it has consistently backed President Donald Trump in its editorials. It also publishes negative facts about him, but does not dwell on them. It also publishes negative commentaries from third parties, but not often.

So, the Journal preserves its dignity. It honors its history, its readers.

But there are also limits to its patience and its tolerance. There comes a time when it says: “up to here and no further.” It may take it some time. But eventually, it says: “enough is enough.”

The WSJ’s "enough" was said to Trump this week.

The headline of its December 1 editorial was: Trump’s Fraud Claims Hit a Barr (a pun on the name of the Attorney General).

And in the text: “Bill Barr can take the heat, and on Tuesday the stalwart Attorney General guaranteed he’ll get it when he said ‘to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election’ … Mr. Barr told the Associated Press that allegations of ‘particularized’ fraud, with some that ‘potentially cover a few thousand votes,’ are being explored. But President Trump is down by 150,000 votes in Michigan, 80,000 in Pennsylvania, and 20,000 in Wisconsin. As for the idea that voting machines were compromised, Mr. Barr said the feds ‘have looked into that, and so far, we haven’t seen anything to substantiate that.’”

The article noted that Trump himself does not believe that, and continued, “But where’s the hard evidence to convince the country? Many of the theories floating around don’t withstand scrutiny.”

The Journal has stated that the election period is coming to an end and that Trump has to pull himself together and protect his legacy, instead of damaging it by denouncing fraud that he cannot prove.

They put truth and country above personal preferences.

And so they retain their credibility – and their readers.