A week ago the hardworking staff noted the New York Times’ glee in reporting on the News of the World/Rupert Rumpus currently embroiling the News Corp(se) empire – five pieces two days in a row.
Make that a double.
Today’s Times features nine – count ’em, nine – pieces on the Murdoch Meltdown, from the front page Murdoch Aides Long Tried to Blunt Scandal Over Hacking piece to Joe Nocera’s The Tables Are Turned on Murdoch op-ed column to a handy Statements by Top Figures in the Hacking Scandal feature.
Very handy indeed.
No wonder the Murdoch sock puppets at the Wall Street Journal are whining on the editorial page about criticism from rival media outlets:
We also trust that readers can see through the commercial and ideological motives of our competitor-critics. The Schadenfreude is so thick you can’t cut it with a chainsaw. Especially redolent are lectures about journalistic standards from publications that give Julian Assange and WikiLeaks their moral imprimatur. They want their readers to believe, based on no evidence, that the tabloid excesses of one publication somehow tarnish thousands of other News Corp. journalists across the world.
New York Times: They mean you.
Campaign Outsider 
Murdoch-owned Fox News Channel online yesterday buried their stories on the scandal, and twisted them to portray the UK government in an unfavorable light, rather than News Corp itself. (Their two stories on the front page last night: “U.K. Gov’t Reeling From Phone-Hacking Scandal” and Lulzsec Hackers Target Sun’s Website” barely make the top screen; nothing on the top screen for business section.) Not their finest hour, even considering who we’re talking about.
WSJ news desk, despite being part of the same parent media company, had lots of stories yesterday on the scandal. Seven stories leading their “Business” section; a number of them up top their home page. Likely indication that Murdoch’s companies’ news slant tumor has not yet infected the WSJ’s news room.
Maybe, maybe not, Michael. See the hardworking staff’s upcoming News Corp(se) Dodge o’ the Day post.
Look again at the two articles in your “Dodge o’ the Day” [no patent pending]: both are categorized as the WSJ under the “Opinion” section. My point was that the WSJ news department is still showing the independence that it had long before Murdoch’s acquisition — not that the opinion pages do.
The WSJ editorial page has, quite often, openly criticized its paper’s own news stories (jeopardize national security! shouldn’t publish it!), and the opinion pages aren’t much different.