Skip to comments.Critics: WSJ edit is suck-up to Murdoch
Posted on 07/18/2011 9:09:57 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Critics: WSJ edit is suck-up to Murdoch By: Reid J. Epstein July 18, 2011 09:38 AM EDT
Safe to say the Wall Street Journals defiant editorial page defense of News Corp. in the growing phone hacking scandal did not convince anyone in the liberal blogosphere or the Journal diaspora.
The scathing editorial, which attacks the Guardian, the New York Times, ProPublica and politicians who have called for investigations into News Corp., drew outrage from both inside the Journal newsroom anonymously, of course and from former Journal reporters.
(The) WSJ Editorial is sad, wrote Sarah Ellison, former Journal reporter and author of War at the Wall Street Journal, on Twitter. Ive always defended the Edit page, but now Its a PR arm.
Felix Salmon, who writes about the business press for Reuters, wrote on his Tumblr that there are three possible explanations for the editorial.
1. It was essentially dictated by Rupert Murdoch, 2. It was written by Paul Gigot or someone else in an attempt to write what Rupert Murdoch would like to see. 3, Its a genuine statement of what the WSJ actually believes. Genuine question, here: which of these three options would be the worst?
The liberal blogs, while perhaps taking the editorial less personally than Journal-affiliated journalists, slammed the paper for its attempt to blame-shift.
In an item headlined: WSJ Editorial: Its everyone elses fault that News Corp illegally hacked phones, Chris in Paris at AmericaBLOG called the piece a fine example of boot licking for the boss.
The piece, he wrote, shows how out of touch Murdochs camp really is. They could get away with this before it was discovered that they were hacking into the phones of young murdered girls but those days are long gone.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
If anyone knows sucking up when it sees it, it’s Politico, et al. Just ask Obama
I couldn’t understand why this British phone-hacking scandal was getting so much press over here, until I read, this morning, that it’s probably a back-handed way to smear Fox News. Now, it makes sense.
Yep. You got it. You KNOW they will be going after Fox News BIG time.
When it can be shown it happened on this side of the Atlantic as part of a policy by News Corp, wake me up.
Until then this will be nothing more than a new front in the political War on Fox.
...exactly...the leftist media is falling all over themselves to use this to hammer both the Cameron government in the UK and Fox News here in the US (or at least hammer the "evil" owner of Fox News. I can't imagine the ethics of the mainstream media is any better than the News of the World hackers - it's just they are too lazy to dig up news by hacking into peoples voice-mail. No need to when you can just make up the news.
Yup, this is the 'Watergate' moment for our marxist media. They'll ignore the dozens of scandals emanating from this White House - the biggest one being the Fast & Furious assault on the 2nd Amendment that directly led to the murder of innocent Americans and Mexicans - but they'll go into hysterics at the chance of taking down the 'evil Mr. Murdoch'...
It won't be too soon when the CBSNBCABCPBSNPRNYTIMESWASHPOST dinosaur goes extinct.
Yes, it is a full fledged witch hunt against anything touched by the “evil” Murdock. Meanwhile Spooky Dude Soros, the actual real BAD guy, floats along untouched and protected by this devoted sucklings Bambi and Holder.
You should read the comments at WSJ! They all sound like Kossites, and DUmmies!
The Journal’s editorial page has been corrupt for a long, long time.
We’re all reading an article by High Times magazine reporter Reid J. Epstein. How’s the ganja, Reid?
From the article:The Journals editorial page has been corrupt for a long, long time.Jesse Eisinger, a former Journal reporter who won a Pulitzer Prize this year with ProPublica, tweeted: Best adj to use for this WSJ editorial: delusional, oedipal, sycophantic or craven?What a surprise! A reporter who attacks "the rich." And all the time the rights of the people - us - wind up in the line of fire. For the simple reason that we were the real target all along. Just one more example of a Big Journalism mouthpiece attacking us. The First Amendment talks about freedom of "the press," but it actually means our right to read what we wanna. Not just what the government might prefer to see printed.
Eisinger, who is married to Ellison, also suggested Journal editorial page editor Paul Gigot has gone from being the champion of rich men to the champion of one rich man. Almost sad.
And, in light of part of the stated mission of the Constitution "To promote the progress of science and useful arts," the right to print entails the right to publish by any subsequent technology - most particularly, the Internet and Free Republic which we are using now.
Nobodys says you have to agree with it, and you're entitle if you want to try to promote that POV (even on Free Republic, if JimRob agrees).But my own mileage varies from yours, and I say that any attempt by the government to shut down the editorial page of the WSJ would be a travesty (but hardly the first touching the First Amendment, considering that the McCain-Feingold bill got passed and signed . . .).