Over the past few years -- post-Murdoch, I now realize -- I've noticed with dismay that the editorial tone of the WSJ has been markedly more "Fox News"-like, from the use of language (e.g. conservative code phrases like "liberal press"), the heavy inclusion of political opinion pieces by right-wing icons such as Karl Rove (a News Corp. employee, I believe, thru Fox), etc. The editorial board's handling of the NoW and related NI stories is pretty much the last straw for me.... when our WSJ subscription expires this month, we're not renewing. It's not just that I find their rhetoric distracting from the stories... it's that I can't trust them to cover the news objectively and properly anymore.

Side note: Does anyone else think it ironic that the NYT is cast as a liberal paper by Fox and company, when conservative columnist David Brooks writes for the Times? Then again, perhaps not... Mr. Brooks seems not afraid to criticize his own side and the excesses of the Mad Hatters in the Tea Party. And in a sense, he's competing for the same audience that Fox/WSJ/News Corp. have targeted as theirs.

No doubt Murdoch and senior News Corp. execs. might find solace in believing that their competitors and enemies are simply making hay over NI's troubles in the U.K. -- the NYT and the Guardian, which first published many of the key revelations are rivals to News Corp. titles, after all. But a little deeper introspection might be warranted -- perhaps News Corp's heavy-handed and ruthless approach to business and journalism has set them up for this kind of public and press reaction?

The ultimate irony, of course, is that they are starting to face some of the same kind of scrutiny that they should be well familiar (from the opposite perspective). I wonder if this might lead to some soul-searching at News Corp over any of their own actions, either in the past or in the future. It would be nice to think that it might.

Over the past few years -- post-Murdoch, I now realize -- I've noticed with dismay that the editorial tone of the WSJ has been markedly more "Fox News"-like, from the use of language (e.g. conservative code phrases like "liberal press"), the heavy inclusion of political opinion pieces by right-wing icons such as Karl Rove (a News Corp. employee, I believe, thru Fox), etc. The editorial board's handling of the NoW and related NI stories is pretty much the last straw for me.... It's not just that I find their rhetoric distracting from the stories... it's that I can't trust them to cover the news objectively and properly anymore.

Side note: Does anyone else think it ironic that the NYT is cast as a liberal paper by Fox and company, when conservative columnist David Brooks writes for the Times? Then again, perhaps not... Mr. Brooks seems not afraid to criticize his own side and the excesses of the Mad Hatters in the Tea Party. And in a sense, he's competing for the same audience that Fox/WSJ/News Corp. have targeted as theirs.

No doubt Murdoch and senior News Corp. execs. might find solace in believing that their competitors and enemies are simply making hay over NI's troubles in the U.K. -- the NYT and the Guardian, which first published many of the key revelations are rivals to News Corp. titles, after all. But a little deeper introspection might be warranted -- perhaps News Corp's heavy-handed and ruthless approach to business and journalism has set them up for this kind of public and press reaction?

The ultimate irony, of course, is that they are starting to face some of the same kind of scrutiny that they should be well familiar (from the opposite perspective). I wonder if this might lead to some soul-searching at News Corp over any of their own actions, either in the past or in the future. It would be nice to think that it might.

Reminds me of Tomasky's study, http://www.slate.com/id/2086691/ (also reported by OTM in Aug. 8, 2003, http://www.onthemedia.org/2003/aug/08/transcript/), in which he finds that the WSJ is more likely to toe the conservative line than the NYT is to adhere to the liberal view.
This was excellent work, and though it's 8 years old, it should be remembered whenever the WSJ's editorial policy is discussed.

Everyone, including OTM, knows this is mostly about 'politics' as much as about journalistic practices. The New York Times has never apologized for its sleazy effort to gin up race hatred in its coverage of the Duke/lacrosse scandal - which I would argue was as harmful to innocent parties (the accused) as anything the News of the World has done. That's just one example - there are others.

I'm interested in how the bar has been set, retroactively. Murdoch and the conservative press have resources they did not have 20 years ago, and the ability to investigate the practices of the media people who are making this scandal the media equivalent of Watergate. As with Watergate, sure enough, we found that the things Nixon was guilty of did not start with Nixon.

Pre-Murdoch, WSJ excoriated Clinton for his "secret" health care legislation workshops, but failed to do the same when Cheney collected energy power brokers to determine regulation and legislation on energy matters for the ensuing ten years. The latter likely has a direct connect to food prices/ethanol subsidies, BP oil spill, who knows what else?

Post-Murdoch, not much better. Auditors of companies know something about the way attitude and discipline flow downhill. It is called "tone at the top." The folkloric expression is, "the fish rots from the head."

Was WSJ editorial board right? Yes, their opinion is valuable, even if generated by, as it seems, a high school debate squad. WSJ reporters are in a bad position no matter the editorial position, but probably more so because of it.

Non-journalists had better care about this story. It's the journalistic equivalent of "first they came for the Jews, I wasn't a Jew, so I didn't say anything ..."

right, there- making it look as Novak had no wrong-doing in the Plame affair is ludicrous. everything falls apart, before, and after, that.

By objecting to prosecutors "regulating" journalism, are they arguing that journalists should have carte blanche to break the law in any way that could furnish information?

Whatever the case, it's always nice to see a conservative persecution complex on display in an editorial full of straw men. Thanks, WSJ.

NYT clearly knows where this is going - even quoting Rebekah Brooks saying competitors are no “Mother Teresa” - http://nyti.ms/o8d5i3

The editorial makes some good points about the overall state of journalism today, and the promise that the WSJ has not violated their readers' trust is welcome.

But it's a bit over the top to blame ProPublica for the Bancroft family's disgust at the hacking and to pretend it was a witchhunt to go after Robert Novak for publishing the name of an undercover operative is over the top.

Use of the phrases "the liberal press," "righteous hindsight" and other castigations of their "critic-competitors" is unseemly in a publication that should at least be embarrassed by its corporate connections.

News Corp. has been tarnished by practices that seem to have been condoned -- if not pushed -- by Rupert Murdoch and his top people.

The WSJ is fully within its rights to defend itself, but to crankily insinuate that Murdoch is being attacked for his success is disingenuous.

I've responded to Wall Street Journal's hypocritical criticism of the Guardian -- as well as their inflammatory statements on WikiLeaks -- in light of the editorial's interpretation of the First Amendment here:

http://www.lasisblog.com/2011/07/18/the-wall-street-journal%E2%80%99s-first-amendment-hypocrisy/