Wall Street Journal Hits Out At 'Schadenfreude'

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Wall-Street-Journal-Hits-Back-At-Critics-Including-BBC-And-The-Guardian-Accusing-Of-Schadenfreude/Article/201107316032618?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_4&lid=ARTICLE_16032618_Wall_Street_Journal_Hits_Back_At_Critics_Including_BBC_And_The_Guardian%2C_Accusing_Of_Schadenfreude

Wall Street Journal Hits Out At 'Schadenfreude'
9Comments
4:37pm UK, Monday July 18, 2011
An editoral in News Corp's Wall Street Journal has hit back at critics of the phone-hacking scandal, accusing them of harbouring "commercial and ideological" motives.
The piece, which does not have an author byline, has attracted hundreds of critical comments, not only on the Wall Street Journal's own website, but also on Twitter.
The newspaper accuses other news organisations of taking the moral high ground on the alleged activities at News Corp, saying: "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."

t adds: "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."
And the "commercial and ideological motives of our competitor-critics" are also highlighted in the article.
The Guardian has already hit back at the criticism, calling it "angry" and accusing it of adopting a "peevish" tone.
"At the end of a weekend in which Murdoch and top News Corporation executives have made a round of apologies for the illegal behaviour of News Of The World, The Wall Street Journal's editorial takes a strikingly opposing posture," it said.
Renowned American journalist Jeff Jarvis said on Twitter: "The Wall Street Journal is becoming Murdoch's cheap harlot, publishing his 'interview' and 'editorialising' his defence."
He adds: "The Journal's notion that #hackgate is a liberal media attack on Murdoch is as offensive as it is delusional."
The BBC's Andrew Neil added his voice to the furore, tweeting: "This, from Wall Street Journal, is closest to what Rupert Murdoch really thinks. Pretty defiant."
The piece goes on to add: "Phone hacking is illegal, and it is up to British authorities to enforce their laws.

"If Scotland Yard failed to do so adequately when the hacking was first uncovered several years ago, then that is more troubling than the hacking itself.
"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 understandable outrage in this case stems from the hacking of a non-celebrity, the murder victim Milly Dowler."
The Journal's writer also heaps praise onto Les Hinton, former publisher of the WSJ, who resigned as CEO of Dow Jones on Friday. He is praised for presiding over four years of investment in the newspaper since Murdoch took it over in 2007.
"We shudder to think what the Journal would look like today without the sale to News Corp," the editorial says.
It signs off with: "Phone-hacking is deplorable, and we assume the guilty will be prosecuted. More fundamentally, the News of the World's offence - fatal, as it turned out - was to violate the trust of its readers by not coming about its news honestly.
"We realise how precious that reader trust is, and our obligation is to re-earn it every day."


Now, any chance of the UK media growing a spine and pointing out that all of this happened on LABOUR AND BLAIR'S WATCH? And that the wrong heads are rolling while 'Two Jags Prescott', best known for cheating on his wife, punching members of the public and living in luxury at the taxpayers expense here:




Leading to headlines like:



is in no position to lecture anyone about morality, as he was today.

That is truly disgraceful. Has he not heard the saying, 'let he who is without sin, cast the first stone?'

He was a leading light in the Labour government when Ms Brook stood in front of the and TOLD them what was going on, eight years ago.
Pig of a man.