'WSJ' Finally Comments on Bank Records Story: Takes No Blame, Rips 'NYT'

Editor & Publisher: 'WSJ' Finally Comments on Bank Records Story: Takes No Blame, Rips 'NYT'
By E&P Staff
Published: June 30, 2006

NEW YORK -- After remaining mum for the past week, even as controversy swirled around newspapers' revealing the banking records surveillance program, the Wall Street Journal editoral page weighed in today. Although the Journal published its own story just hours after The New York Times--which has taken the most heat--its editorial defended its own action while blasting the Times.

It even included a personal slam at Times' publisher, Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr. and said the Times did not want to win, but rather obstruct, the war on terror.

Among other things, it criticized the Times for using the Journal as "its ideological wingman" to deflect criticism from the right. And it pointed out that the news and editorial departments are quite separate at the paper and if given the option the editorial side would not have printed the Times' story.

Finally, it explained how it got its own story, then slammed the Times for a wide range of sins, claiming that the "current political clamor" is "warning to the press about the path the Times is walking."

Here are a few excerpts:

We recount all this because more than a few commentators have tried to link the Journal and Times at the hip. On the left, the motive is to help shield the Times from political criticism. On the right, the goal is to tar everyone in the "mainstream media." But anyone who understands how publishing decisions are made knows that different newspapers make up their minds differently....

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002764884

EOM

they sound like a copycat killer blaming the person they imitating for the murders they committed.

Pathetic.

"The Devil made me do it."

on this matter:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2701430

Their colors are definitely showing. Weasels!

No?

Stunning.

I can't feel too sorry for a newspaper that withheld a vital story about the "bulge" in bush's back, because they thought it might affect the election, when not too long ago they blasted Clinton for his Lewinsky-inspired bulge.

They also failed miserably in their oversight of Judith "I loves me some WMD" Miller.

The NYT has become a scapegoat. Hoist on their own petard, so to speak.

As one major paper back stabs the other and all are probably fearing saying a word right now that might, even in the slightest, offend King George, we need alternatives that aren't afraid. Ones that can afford the costs that a mainstream paper/television and radio broadcast will cost - to mention a competent group of lawyers.

Know any millionaire, billionaire, exceptionally wealthy philanthropists or entrepreneurs who'd like to donate to a liberal/progressive...or even just a plan old fashion group of journalists w/ a backbone who give a damn, media program? :)

wing fascist monster must be fed and the power elite has yet to decide which way it is going to break on the issue. If the power elite sides with the fascists, expect further action against the NYT. If the power elite breaks toward the press, expect further nasty revelations about BFEE depredations.

if the Times "did not want to win, but rather obstruct, the war on terror" like the crybaby right wingers on the WSJ editorial staff say then what does it say about their own journalists there who were independently investigating this story???

This is the same MO...and worse, it's all connected to revenge on Bush's "enemies" connected to the war in Iraq. I just don't think it's as simple as an election year strategy. It's connected, and complicated, but connected.

The NYT published the Joe Wilson piece. Plame is outted and the WH response is, "No comment. On-going investigation." The NYT published (after holding on to the story for a year) the NSA piece. WH response is, "Find the leakers!" which, by the way the 'leaker' came out to be Russel Tice. WH response, "NYT is irresponsible!" The NYT purged Judy Miller. Scooter's out. WH response, "On-going investigation. No comment." NYT publishes banking story which, by the way is all over the WH website, the SWIFT website and publication, and has been touted by the administration all along. WH response to this story? "Irresponsible! Treasonous!"...feigned outrage?

The WH knew this story was going to be published. Their response was a little CYA to brief a few Democrats and implement battleground strategy in public relations. The Bushetals have had a difficult time in fully discrediting the NYT (as they did with Dan Rather after he had a televised interview with Saddam just prior to the invasion). Short of being able to discredit them, attacking them is all they have left.

Nothing is as it seems when ever the media chooses to talk about ITSELF as opposed to the issue at hand.

(See Dan Rather/AWOL, "Newsweek lied about the Koran", "Check out our new Anchors" etc, etc, and now this.)

destroy another by direct attack. pretty pathetic to hide your business woes behind false patriotism.

to monitor bank transfers?