Wall Street Journal hits back over phone hacking scandal in editorial

[cal04]

The Wall Street Journal accuses the Guardian and the BBC of driving the phone hacking story for 'commercial and ideological motives'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/18/wall-street-journal-editorial-phone-hacking

The Wall Street Journal has attempted to redirect the criticism that has been levelled against its owner, Rupert Murdoch, against the journalists who uncovered the illegal phone hacking and bribery at the News of the World.

In an angry unsigned editorial, the paper accuses the Guardian and the BBC of driving the phone hacking story for "commercial and ideological motives". It implies that the Guardian did not have the right to make "lectures about journalistic standards" because of this newspaper's involvement in publishing the WikiLeaks embassy cables.

At the end of a weekend in which Murdoch and top News Corporation executives have made a round of apologies for the illegal behaviour of News of the World, the Wall Street Journal's editorial takes a strikingly opposing posture. It adopts a peevish tone, noting "the irony of so much moral outrage devoted to a single media company, when British tabloids have been known for decades for buying scoops and digging up dirt on the famous."

(snip)
The editorial provoked an instant outpouring of comment on Twitter, much of it unfavourable. As one tweet, by Jesse Elsinger, put it: "Best adj to use for this WSJ editorial: delusional, oedipal, sycophantic or craven?"

[JDPriestly]

1. Huge difference between receiving and publishing information

owned by the people of the United States, most of which should never have been characterized as "secret," and tapping the phones of private citizens, celebrities and government officials.

Huge difference. The two cannot be equated.

Besides, Wikileaks publishes information obtained by third parties. It does not hack into government or private accounts itself. It receives leaks from whistleblowers. Also a huge difference.

[elleng]

2. #1 Rule: NEVER read a WSJ editorial!

[Angry Dragon]

3. If it is unsigned it is just a piece of fish wrap,

bird cage crap catcher, wall street toilet paper

[66 dmhlt]

7. Unsigned editorials are Standard Practice

They represent the official position of the organization. Signed pieces are Op-Eds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards

[ProfessionalLeftist]

4. Finger-pointing, hypocrisy, minimalization, false equivalency, "they-do-it-too-ism", ...

... yep. It's a Teapublican publication alright. Reminds me of the guy who blames his wife because he beats the crap out of her - 'cause you know she "made" him mad. And besides, the guy across the street beats his mamma up, so...

A couple other adjectives: narcissistic, and juvenile

[Ghost Dog]

5. Sounds like written by James Murdoch or under his orders,

I'd guess.

He's been banging on for ages now about the Guardian and the BBC having "commercial and ideological motives" (whereas he claims for NewsCorpse only commercial motives).

[4dsc]

6. Is someone getting a little scared by all this press?

As they said on WKRP, film at 11.

[Uncle Joe]

8. The answer to Jesse Elsinger's question on the last paragraph is all of the above.

The editorial provoked an instant outpouring of comment on Twitter, much of it unfavourable. As one tweet, by Jesse Elsinger, put it: "Best adj to use for this WSJ editorial: delusional, oedipal, sycophantic or craven?"

Thanks for the thread, cal.