Staci Kramer: WSJ, its journalists would be better off if editorial had been spiked

paidContent.org| Wall Street Journal | Politico.com
The Wall Street Journal editorial that everyone will be talking about today “doesn’t use the term ‘shut the f* up’ or quote Cee Lo Green,” writes Staci Kramer, “but the 1,046 carefully chosen words are written for the choir and aimed squarely at News Corp. critics.” The “remarkable editorial portrays News Corp. as a victim of a media pile-on led by liberal politicians and media competition in the U.K. and the U.S.,” notes Reid Epstein. From Kramer’s piece:

The gist: Don’t blame us; the Journal is better off out of the hands of the Bancrofts; not investigating hacking is worse than hacking; fear media regulation; the BBC; the Guardian and liberal politicians have their own agendas; and anyone who backs Wikileaks should look in the mirror.

It is a masterpiece as far as defensive editorials go – and the Journal and its journalists would be better off if it had been spiked.

On Twitter, Jay Rosen called it “deluded dishonest whining victimology,” while Dan Gillmor said it was “the utter depths.” Keith Olbermann tweeted to his 305,142 followers: “If you’d like to read Arrogant Whistling Past The Graveyard: Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal Pile of Editorial Bullshit.”

The Washington Post said in a Sunday editorial headlined “Don’t let the response to News of the World go too far” that the “contemptible” excesses by tabloids are hardly new, “but because News of the World forms part of the multinational media empire headed by Rupert Murdoch, the affair has touched off a larger backlash against what is regarded as the excessive power of his News Corp.” The paper says suggestions that Britain should replace the newspaper industry’s self-regulatory body with official regulation “are misguided and dangerous.”
> Greenslade: How Murdoch’s philosophy created a climate of misbehavior
> Jarvis: Buh-bye Murdochs? It’s now quite conceivable
> Niles: All journalists should be rooting for News Corp. to fail
> Auletta: Murdoch doesn’t have enough fingers to stop the gushing water
> Hoyt: In a strange way, Murdoch has done newspapers a large favor
> Carr: Murdoch has been in deep trouble before and survived — even prospered
> Farhi: NPR, NYT enthusiastically pursue story while Fox downplays it


ADVERTISEMENT

We have made it easy to comment on posts, however we require civility and encourage full names to that end (first initial, last name is OK). Please read our guidelines here before commenting.

  • Anonymous

    Does anyone really care what a leftie like Rosen says? And Kramer? She’s be lucky to have a gig as entry-level copy editing at the Journal.

  • Anonymous

    Our article last week on the views of the former
    controlling shareholders of Dow Jones accurately reflected the views of key
    players in the Wall Street Journal’s takeover by Murdoch. The message may have
    been unwelcome to some, but as we and the Journal reporting staff often tell
    subjects of our stories, that’s no reason to blame the messenger.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=704457189 Staci D. Kramer

    Thanks for remembering the J-Ethics listserv.

  • http://twitter.com/mediainvestors Ted Carroll

    I would tread lightly here. Murdock U.K. papers not at all alone in “dirty tricks journalism.” Others leaving no stone unthrown before the spotlight swings onto them.

  • http://twitter.com/mediainvestors Ted Carroll

    I would tread lightly here. Murdock U.K. papers not at all alone in “dirty tricks journalism.” Others leaving no stone unthrown before the spotlight swings onto them.

  • M K S

    Nice to see the WSJ adopting the FOX Whiny Crybaby Victim defense. If anyone wonders why the entire Murdoch enterprise isn’t tainted by the festering bile it calls journalism, here it is in black and white. They are, and should be, painted whole stroke by the same sordid brush.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504633504 Dan Mitchell

    And what heights of greatness have you achieved, exactly?

  • Anonymous

    Like you — nothing near the Wall Street Journal, which is the best newspaper and the very best opinion page in the nation, if not the world. Again, who really cares what the usual suspects of the “Poynter clique” say about the WSJ?

  • Anonymous

    And again, what would K&R have said if the Journal said zilch? They would be moaning and whining even worse.

    The Journal weighed in on an internal company matter — something but two papers I have worked had the guts to do.

    The U.S. political left — which hates the Journal/FOX/Rupe — just doesn’t like what the WSJ said. Further, their fascination with this five-year-old United Kingom/NOTW scandal shows where their priorities are: With getting at FOX/WSJ, rather than the federal budget, three wars, etc.

    That is what has always been most important to so many high-profile “journalists” like Maddow and Olbermann. Nothing else.

    It is all just noise.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Levy/1332321421 Marc Levy

    My first guess would be those reading them and spending time commenting on them.

    By the way, I accidentally clicked “like” instead of “reply.” I was not intending to send a mixed message, especially since I almost never “like” things — even when I actually like them.

  • Anonymous

    “Phone-hacking is deplorable, and we assume the guilty will be prosecuted. More fundamentally, the News of the World’s offense—fatal, as it turned out—was to violate the trust of its readers by not coming about its news honestly. We realize how precious that reader trust is, and our obligation is to re-earn it every day.”

    OMG! Such WSJ crybabies! This last line is the worst of all! It should have been spiked!

    (Seriously, wtaching the News Corp haters go though Olbermann withdrawal is an ugly business.)

  • M K S
  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=628233825 Trevor Butterworth

    It’s interesting to note, whatever your take on the merits or demerits of the Wall Street Journal editorial might be, that its mention here is framed by the criticism even though it is, itself, a piece of media criticism. If it is, indeed, the piece that everyone in media crit land will be talking about today, why is it entirely framed by the negative responses rather than a thesis/antithesis format that quotes from it and then its critics? This is the approach that Mediagazer took. 

  • Anonymous

    I love Romenesko, Levy. Love it. I overlook the “warts” — the overuse of PaidContent, Rosen, David Cay, etc. because Jim R. is just so damned good. I also like Poynter.

  • Gary Cowart

    Funny. All this coverage of Murdoch and none about Fast and Furious where people died. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504633504 Dan Mitchell

    “none” – http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=fast+and+furious&btnmeta_news_search=Search+News&tbm=nws

  • Gary Cowart

    Compared to this story – in which no one was killed -  yeah.

  • http://www.facebook.com/bradleyfikes Bradley J. Fikes

    Romenesko is the star of Poynter. We like to read the media gossip more than the earnest lessons on how to be a better journalist.

  • Anonymous

    As noted in the WSJ editorial:  “The Schadenfreude is so thick you can’t cut it with a chainsaw.”  One look at this blog is proof of that.
     

  • Anonymous

    I already know not to steal and poach material, Bradley, but when the New York Times got caught doing it in 2003 – I think that lesson got seared into the minds of 90% of younger journos.

    Those chuckling at News Corp for this scandal –that people will forget about in 6 months — forget themselves — sooner or later, another Blair or Olbermann — or another CBS-style Bush-AWOL-papers non-story — will arise at one of our many flawed liberal media institutions in the USA.

    BroMatt

blog comments powered by Disqus