It’s No “Kerfuffle” (NR slams the WSJ)

NRO ^ | 2/14/05 | Andrew McCarthy

[pissant]

The girly men at the WSJ lived up to their billing. Good to see NRO siding with the blogosphere.

[MEG33]

Andrew McCarthy..Bravo!

RELEASE THE TAPE!

[WorkingClassFilth]

"...the [WSJ] launches a solipsistic defense of its news judgment that this just wasn't much of a story, selectively rehashing its initial reporting: a (mostly) opinion piece by the ordinarily excellent Bret Stephens, whose account and assessment, to be blunt, was way off the mark."

Stephen's term for Jordan's remarks was "innuendo." I'm glad to see that NRO is putting Stephen's remarks up his "innuendo."

[iopscusa]

Oh Boy, the WSJ is trying to sabotage itself, they may not need much help after this little epiphany...but isn't it grand when the masks start coming off and we are witnessing these type of confessions. The music sounds like a Dinosaur stampede! LOL

[StoneGiant]

I agree with NRO... Sent an email to WSJ suggesting that they look into why the MSM --- of which they are a part! --- was so cavalierly ignoring :

1) Sandy Berger;

2) Dan Rather; and

3) the three CBS non-firing firings for people still associated with that organization.

I suggested that the bigger story was not the status of each situation, but rather (no pun intended) why the media has seemed to lost interest in the affairs.

I do not expect a response, which perhaps says something.

[Savage Beast]

"...from a 'dumb' but forgivably faux pas"

Well said, Andy. Both the article and the Frenglish.

[OldFriend]

One good thing about all this.....I was about to bite the bullet and spend the $200 on a yearly subscription to the WSJ home delivery.......

Think I'll stick to getting my information from the net in general and FR in particular.

[cloud8]

Is Paul Gigot on vacation or something? On drugs? Bob Bartley would never have penned this editorial, that's for sure...

[maica]

Great response by NRO.

I wrote similar, in 'amateur' form to the WSJ after I read a column by Bret Stephens today. I wonder how many internet 'amateurs' will the WSJ be hearing from today?

Larry Kudlow's blog also has terrific commentary.
http://lkmp.blogspot.com/2005/02/easongate_10.html

[jayef]

SCATHING!

[SW6906]

Paul Gigot was on Fox News Sunday yesterday and said pretty much the same things the WSJ editorial did. He obviously was involved in its writing. Sorry.

[jackbill]

Paul Gigot, the editorial page editor of the WSJ, was on Fox News Sunday's panel yesterday. He expressed the exact same sentiments that are in the editorial - which he most likely wrote.

Many times I've been suspicious that Paul is a "go along" guy. Sort of a David Gergen type.

[Piranha]

I ordinarily love the courage shown by the Wall Street Journal. I can't remember an editorial there before that was so far off the mark.

I agree 100% with this National Review analysis.

I hope that in the clear light of day the WSJ will re-assess its lonely position among the leaders of the integrity-driven news media and come to a different conclusion.

[hsalaw]

I agree with you. I get the WSJ online, and today sent them an e-mail reponse to that idiotic article, as follows:

"Your logic is flawed. You claim Dan Rather's fate was deserved, because Dan Rather perpetrated a fraud and then attempted to defend it. You then claim Jordan Eason's fate wasn't deserved, because Eason attempted to perpetrate a fraud but then tried to conceal it. You then conclude that Eason's fate was indeed deserved because he lied on behalf of CNN about events in Saddam's Iraq. So it would appear this article has no point at all, except to defend your failure to report Eason's most recent malicious lies against the U. S. Military (which, by the way, weren't his first). You must know by now that even if you don't think something is newsworthy, the blogosphere will, and the public will be informed despite you."

[McGavin999]

I want to know who at the Journal wrote the editorial and who approved it. It was a totally disgusting editorial that showed a total lack of respect for Journal readers. It would seem that "journalists" have no ethical lines, no accountability, they can do and write anything they want.....no holds barred.

If you want to know why the MSM is failing, this is the perfect case. That the Wall Street Journal would toss it's ethics out the window is frightening.

[Nick Danger]

I sort of agree with the Journal in the sense that if CNN and Jordan had wanted to tough this out, they could have. Without the tape, it's a "he said / he said" as to what exactly was said in Davos.

My theory is that Eason Jordan jumped not because he feared the tape coming out, but because he feared getting "Gannoned," where one of the peasants with the pitchforks was going to find something that Jordan knows is out there, that is embarassing as hell. He probably figured that if the pitchforkers got his scalp, they would stop looking.

[skip_intro]

Many times I've been suspicious that Paul is a "go along" guy. Sort of a David Gergen type.

If you ever saw the Paul vs Mark Shields "debates" on the old Friday night McNeil-Lerher show, you'd be more than suspicious. Paul was always the designated punching bag.

[jackbill]

If you ever saw the Paul vs Mark Shields "debates" on the old Friday night McNeil-Lerher show, you'd be more than suspicious. Paul was always the designated punching bag.

That's where I got my first impression of Gigot. Once I wrote to him, telling him that I was disappointed with his lack of "passion" and I got a rather nasty note back.

[OldFriend]

Maybe Al Hunt was secretly made editorial page editor?

One wonders what the writer could have been thinking by defending this type of comment by CNN's news director.

[OldFriend]

You mean besides Jordan leaving his wife and children to become the lover of Daniel Pearl, the WALL ST. JOURNAL reporter who was murdered by islamic terrorists?