Supporting the Unsupportable – a WSJ Editorial Tradition
The Wall Street Journal is owned by the News Corp. The British papers accused of egregious acts in
are owned by the News Corp. Not surprisingly, the WSJ editorial staff has come out swinging in support of its sister companies and its parent. Britain
Here is what they say, and here is what it really means.
politicians and our competitors are using the phone-hacking years ago at a British corner of News Corp. to assail the Journal,
Actually there is has been little or no criticism of the Journal. But why not play the victim card anyway.
Scotland Yard failed to do so adequately when the hacking was first uncovered several years ago, then that is Phone-hacking is illegal, and it is up to British authorities to enforce their laws. If more troubling than the hacking itself.
This whole thing is the fault of the police for not catching the criminal. And the real problem is not crimes and criminals, it is when they are not caught.
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.
Only News Corp. media companies like the WSJ and Fox News should use news reporting to influence public affairs, it’s not fair when others do it.
Which brings us to Friday's resignation of our publisher and CEO, Les Hinton, who ran News Corp.'s British newspaper unit during the time of the alleged hacking. In his resignation letter, Mr. Hinton said he knew nothing about wide-scale hacking and had testified truthfully to Parliament in 2007 and 2009. We have no reason to doubt him, especially based on our own experience working for him.
Les Hinton, former CEO of Dow Jones & Co.
Well that should be good enough for everyone, particularly if you ignore the statements of a lot of others News Corp. executives who said they knew nothing, and now it turns out they did.
The political mob has been quick to call for a criminal probe into whether News Corp. executives violated the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act with payments to British security or government officials in return for information used in news stories. Attorney General Eric Holder quickly obliged last week, without so much as a fare-thee-well to the First Amendment. U.S.
The WSJ editorial staff apparently believes that the First Amendment allows newspapers to engage in corrupt acts. Mr. Jefferson just forgot to put that in but they know what he meant. Oh, and there is this from The New York Times on News Corp. operations in the U. S.