Wall Street Journal To Non-Murdoch Media: You're All A Bunch Of Hypocrites

Today the typically ludicrous Wall Street Journal editorial page stands up for its boss Rupert Murdoch, whose empire is sinking into an ever-expanding scandal morass. (Over the weekend, the Times summed it up best with the incredible headline: "Taint From Tabloids Rubs Off on a Cozy Scotland Yard"—"Taint" since discreetly changed to "Stain"). The Journal's editorials and op-eds are renowned for their cartoonish "THE BUMS LOST!" ranting, and today's entry is particularly roaring, as the paper frames the News Corp. scandal as an assault on "press freedom in general":

We also trust that readers can see through the commercial and ideological motives of our competitor-critics. The Schadenfreude is so thick you can't cut it with a chainsaw. Especially redolent are lectures about journalistic standards from publications that give Julian Assange and WikiLeaks their moral imprimatur. They want their readers to believe, based on no evidence, that the tabloid excesses of one publication somehow tarnish thousands of other News Corp. journalists across the world

Even though Les Hinton, the Journal's publisher, was just fired by Murdoch, the Journal wants readers to know that they've got nothing to do with this mess. Trust them! And the "braying" liberal "mob" trying to rub tabloid taint on the prestigious Journal should tread very carefully, because "the last time the liberal press demanded a media prosecutor, it was to probe the late conservative columnist Robert Novak in pursuit of White House aide Scooter Libby. But the effort soon engulfed a reporter for the New York Times, which had led the posse to hang Novak and his sources. Do our media brethren really want to invite Congress and prosecutors to regulate how journalists gather the news?"

Good point, Wall Street Journal: This whole journalistic integrity thing is a real house of cards! If the lamestream media doesn't circle the wagons around News Corp, who knows what the guv'ment will start investigating next? First they came for the tabloids... and by the time they came for Mother Jones, only the blogs were left to "speak out" (i.e., copy and paste from Daily Kos open threads).

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By John Del Signore in News on July 18, 2011 11:15 AM

Comments [rss]

ANGRYGOD11

The WSJ wants us to believe, without proof to the contrary, a media empire with a global reputation for ruthlessness was only evil in this single newspaper, Murdoch's largest British paper. And the others, including television stations, were all pure as falling snow?

69GeorgeWBush69

Their strategy in Britain was to try to spread the blame from their hacking scandal onto other newspapers and tabloids. They have zero credibility.

angry_pickle

And we have no proof for it either. And out of 4000+ phone numbers, how many were actually tapped? We don't know that either.

ANGRYGOD11

Considering the publisher of the WSJ was just fired, I'm entitled to my suspicions.

S.D.

Well, the writer sure knows who signs his paycheck...

randomtransplant

Is the WSJ implying that this stuff went on in the US too!? But for some "unknown" reason they don't want to support the claim with specifics?

The Times article JSD mentions might have been a game changer - it will be hard to maintain an image as a source of executable bussiness news when those bussiness readers knows their own peers in bussiness, and the information industries they depend on,will be second-guessing the source.

angry_pickle

I doubt WSJ readers would turn away from insider information. And second guessing sources and reading between the line is basically what financial analysts should do every single day.

BottomlessChips

The First Amendment has long been a liberal rallying cry...except for campaigns of people they don't like, rap music they don't understand, and for private media outlets they don't like.

Politburo

Please explain how the First Amendment relates to this situation.

BottomlessChips

The part JDS has in bold and snarkily agreed with...

...the underlying sentiment is that they need to be regulated for this egregious behavior.

Regulating media = first amendment concerns.

Does the math make sense now, Politburo?

ANGRYGOD11

The First Amendment isn't a liberal ideal, its an American foundation of our freedom, you moron. People of different ideologies have died for it.

BottomlessChips

I said rallying cry. Nice argument based on something I never said, though.

ANGRYGOD11

The First Amendment has long been a rallying cry FOR ALL AMERICANS.

You're welcome.

BottomlessChips

The point was about how both parties/ideologies can disrespect the fundamental reason behind the amendment.

69GeorgeWBush69

Go spout your talking points to the other retards at the fox news comments section

BottomlessChips

Retards?

How progressive of you!

ANGRYGOD11

In this case, the free press disrespected murder victims, terrorist victims, dead soldiers and their families while bribing the police.

BottomlessChips

Absolutely.

The answer isn't to regulate the press though, which is what the post is about: the confluence of morals, government and journalism.

News Corp. may be in the wrong, but that doesn't make the WSJ's op-ed any less valid. Liberals who lauded the unconventional, "modern" journalism of Wikileaks seem to want things both ways.

It happens with both parties, but again, it doesn't make it right.

Guest

Both sides of the political fence are guilty of doing this exact thing. Calling the WSJ ludicrous, when your website is beyond ludicrous, just feeds the fire.

Guest

>Both sides of the political fence are guilty of doing this exact thing.

Wiretapping 9/11 victims and erasing messages from teen murder victims while panning for tabloid gossip? And then bribing police while blackmailing parliament?

I'm guessing you've got some evidence of that for the "other side of the political fence" doing that? Or is that some sort of crazy wishful "maybe two wrongs would make a right" thinking.