Tuesday, July 19, 2011

The Establishment Battles: WSJ's Subtle Warning to NYT

Wow, there is nothing like a major league establishmnet turf war.  As the Guardian-New York Times instigated attack on the Murdoch empire intensifies, the Wall Street Journal has come out swinging in defense of its parent. The swings have landed everywhere, on WSJ's former parent, on all of Fleet Street and directly at the New York Times.

In an editorial, WSJ landed this nasty punch against its former owners:
The prize for righteous hindsight goes to the online publication ProPublica for recording the well-fed regrets of the Bancroft family that sold Dow Jones to News Corp. at a 67% market premium in 2007. The Bancrofts were admirable owners in many ways, but at the end of their ownership their appetite for dividends meant that little cash remained to invest in journalism. We shudder to think what the Journal would look like today without the sale to News Corp.
On Monday, Lew Rockwell filled us in on the truth about Murdoch hacker "scandal":
 ... this is not unusual wrongdoing suddenly discovered. It is one part of the establishment destroying another.
In the heat of the attack on the Murdoch empire, WSJ in its editorial has chosen to confirm what Rockwell explained to us. The editorial states:
It is also worth 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. Fleet Street in general has long had a well-earned global reputation for the blind-quote, single-sourced story that may or may not be true....The British politicians now bemoaning media influence over politics are also the same statesmen who have long coveted media support. The idea that the BBC and the Guardian newspaper aren't attempting to influence public affairs, and don't skew their coverage to do so, can't stand a day's scrutiny.
The WSJ editorial closes with a subtle warning shot against the NYT, who had reporters digging up dirt on the Murdoch empire for months before breaking the stories that launched the current wave of intense scrriutiny of Murdoch operations:
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?


  1. There is nothing quite like having the openly slanted and historically dishonest NYT lead a charge on journalism integrity, but, I don't blame them for going on the attack. Their readers expect it and it should provide some good copy that maybe will help them with their anemic bottom line.

  2. Heh. And it was The Guardian who double crossed Julian Assange and printed leaked police reports of his case, recall?

    Oh my.

    One set of scoundrels pointing the finger at another.

  3. "Do our media brethren really want to invite Congress and prosecutors to regulate how journalists gather the news?"

    An affair that creates such outcry as to demand new regulatory powers that ensnare thousands of independent bloggers and journalist? The, "problem, reaction, solution," formula comes through for the establishment again.

    This episode wreaks like so much tainted spinach and the food "safety" legislation that follows.

  4. "Do our media brethren really want to invite Congress and prosecutors to regulate how journalists gather the news?"

    When BHO is running for his second term. The White House wants as much power as they can get to muzzle the media. This is just the beginning of the regulating of media who are against BHO.

    You'll notice Holder picks and selects what is to their benefit. Unlike the "Black Panthers" at the voting polls, which nothing was ever done.

  5. This is all utter nonsense. After 60 years in the news business, I know all good stories come with "privileged info" or else there would be no story. The whole business of journals, from their inception, is to "out" the facts so the reader can know what is happening on the inside, not what is promoted to obscure the real truth. This is what is called Freedom of the Press. That it may violate someone's privacy is of no mind if that someone is meddling with others and their lives. Our American law advocates that the public has the right to know and has coded it in the Freedom of Information laws and regs passed by all our governing groups. If it must be known, it will be known, by hook or crook! The writer, as an individual, has the right to express concerns and reasons for them using any or all sources, no matter how it disturbs those involved. That is called the Responsibility of the Press and in short supply these days when the Press sells out to one ideologue over another!

    The uproar over phone tapping, etc. is a false cry and looks to be the first move in closing down the Press worldwide, a prerequisite for the new global government which will not and cannot govern us all for a long time and you can guess what that means to all of us!

  6. Brava, Alice!

    The elites want to shut down "uncensored" information, so their editors and owners can "massage the message" until only a glimmer of the truth remains.

    Please keep posting here- you sound like you have some fascinating insights to share with the class!