[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
United States News Title: Critics: WSJ Edit Is Suck-Up To Murdoch Safe to say the Wall Street Journal’s 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. “I’ve always defended the Edit page, but now It’s 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, It’s 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: It’s everyone else’s 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 Murdoch’s 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. Mark Howard at News Corpse, a site that campaigns against corporate media, called the editorial a “tone-deaf defense of Murdochalypse.” “The only thing more grating than their arrogance is their victimehood ,” he wrote. “Apparently the only controversy is that the rest of the media world is ganging up on the long-suffering Wall Streeters and their bosses.” And at Daily Kos, dweb8231 wrote that the piece is “a true WSJ editorial work of art.” “With the executive leadership of News Corp either in court, out of work, or about to testify before Parliamentary committees,” dweb8231 wrote, “one wonders if the WSJ’s piece was written as part of a corporate plan or simply drafted in a moment of high dudgeon by the paper’s editorial board which has been particularly famous since the Murdoch takeover for its heated defenses of conservative positions on everything from Wall Street reform to environmental and consumer regulation and … of course … foreign bribery laws.” 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?” 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.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
Oh ... a politico.com story ... Not like they are biased in any way.
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|