[no_apathy]

This is not right vs left or conservative vs liberal or even about media bias. This is old vs. new. This is big vs little. And the WSJ is both very old and very big. Eason Jordan may not be quite WSJ material, but is from the same world. EJ is much closer to WSJ than Easongate.com or CaptainsQuartersblog.com will ever be. Agree totally. It appears that the writer is getting his jabs in at the bloggers because of an attack of jealousy. Or perhaps it was simply driven by competition? May explain his attitude towards Malkin also?

[blanknoone]

I highly recommend Captain Ed's take on Stephens motivations.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/003793.php#comments

The analysis continues in the comments from Max:
"The WSJ first tried to bury this story, and now that it can't, to throw water on the flames.

It is clear that this is the case given that James Taranto of the WSJ's Best of the Web has yet to mention what is in fact the biggest story on the web. His failure to do so can imo only be attributed to a conscious decision by the WSJ to protect Eason Jordan and CNN. Both he and the WSJ have lost a lot of credibility with me, and I'm sure others, over their handling of this."

"I tried to post a reply to Stephens' article and got a message along the lines of 'this article is over a week old and replys will not be posted'."