Murdoch's (WSJ) editorial shows stunning lack of class

Seldom do editorials create much of a stir anymore (that is if they're even read), but this morning's petulant attack against the world has been getting lots of attention, most of it bad. The piece is both a pathetically drawn summation of why News Corp. is getting a bum rap in the ever-expanding phone hacking scandal, and a sour defense of what a great job the company has done as owner of the Journal. Far from it. From the editorial:

News Corp. and its executives have apologized profusely and are cooperating with authorities. 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.

[CUT]

Our readers can decide if we are a better publication than we were four years ago, but there is no denying that News Corp. has invested in the product. The news hole is larger. Our foreign coverage in particular is more robust, our weekend edition more substantial, and our expansion into digital delivery ahead of the pack ... 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.

Rich, eh? Before this morning's editorial came a curious interview of Murdoch in Friday's paper that NYT columnist Joe Nocera says "might as well have been dictated by the News Corporation public relations department." He also assesses the Journal under Murdoch:

Within five months, Murdoch had fired the editor and installed his close friend Robert Thomson, fresh from a stint Fox-ifying The Times of London. The new publisher was Leslie Hinton, former boss of the division that published Murdoch's British newspapers, including The News of the World. (He resigned on Friday.) Soon came the changes, swift and sure: shorter articles, less depth, an increased emphasis on politics and, weirdly, sometimes surprisingly unsophisticated coverage of business. Along with the transformation of a great paper into a mediocre one came a change that was both more subtle and more insidious. The political articles grew more and more slanted toward the Republican party line. The Journal sometimes took to using the word "Democrat" as an adjective instead of a noun, a usage favored by the right wing.

And just so you know: Nocera was one of the few commentators who applauded the sale.