Reporters are heavily criticizing The Wall Street Journal and its editor-in-chief for their handling of the paper's “deeply embarrassing” recent interview with President Donald Trump. The Journal’s leadership has been heavily criticized from both inside and outside of its newsroom for soft coverage of the new administration.

The Journal interviewed Trump on July 25 and posted transcript and audio excerpts of their talk but declined to release a full transcript. Roughly a week later, the full transcript was posted online -- by Politico.

Politico explained that “the full version has circulated around the Journal newsroom as well as among others in New York and Washington” and Matt Murray, the Journal's deputy editor-in-chief, warned staff against leaking the transcript. Editor-in-Chief Gerard Baker “asked many of the questions and took the lead byline on the main piece about the interview as well, an unusual step for the editor in chief of a paper with a large White House reporting staff.”

In addition to Baker, Murray, Washington bureau chief Paul Beckett, and White House reporters Michael Bender and Peter Nicholas were at the interview.

Media Matters and other outlets have reported that staffers at the Rupert Murdoch-owned paper have been concerned about the publication's coverage of Trump, with those staffers saying that there is “pressure to reflect pro-Trump viewpoints” and “everyone in the newsroom is concerned about it.”

NPR’s David Folkenflik reported that “some reporters and editors at the storied paper tell NPR they believe the Journal had been [soft on Trump], particularly during the campaign, to please the conservative views held by Baker and the paper's controlling owner, News Corp executive chairman Rupert Murdoch.”

Numerous reporters slammed the Journal for its conduct both during and after its Trump interview. Columbia Journalism Review’s Pete Vernon wrote that “outside of a few impressive pieces on Trump’s business entanglements,” the paper “has largely failed to deliver game-changing scoops. Baker’s chumminess with the Trump family, as well as the failure of any journalists in the room to push back against false claims such as Trump’s assertion that ‘we’re the highest-taxed nation in the world,’ will undoubtedly fuel the perception that the Journal isn’t pushing as hard as some of its marquee competitors.”

Poynter’s James Warren concluded that the Journal comes off poorly and “the guy running one of the most formidable and respected newsrooms is largely to blame.”

Reporters on Twitter roasted the Journal and Baker for their conduct. They tweeted that Baker is a “suck-up” whose behavior should make the Journal feel “ashamed” and “deeply” embarrassed. They also wrote that Baker is hurting his newsroom and “his news staff clearly has it in for him.” Here is a sampling of that reaction: