Skip to main content

View Diary: The Washington Post's bizarre defense of the Rupert Murdoch, News Corp. phone hacking scandal (110 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Several things wrong about the diary . . . (0+ / 0-)

    For starters, since the FP linking to this diary seems to be confused about Fred Hiatt's role within the organization, it's worth noting that he isn't the news section editor.  When I first saw the link, I thought maybe Hiatt had written a dumb editorial attempting to partially defend Murdoch, which wouldn't be surprising.  But that doesn't appear to be the case yet.

    FWIW, the head of the news section is a former WSJ news editor who was cashiered by Murdoch when he took over the WSJ (Marcus Brauchuli).

    With respect to this diary: The writer cited in this diary has written a bunch of news stories about the scandal.  Most are pretty decent pieces of journalism.  He doesn't soft-pedal the coverage or spin the facts.  He's reported on all of the major daily turns and has played things straight.  Focusing on just one story that the writer has written and using it as an illustration of EVERY thing that he is written about the scandal strikes me as cherry-picking.

    Is the Washington Post's news coverage of this Murdoch story on par with the NY Times or the Guardian?  No, of course not.  But that's to be expected.  

    The Post has farmed this one out to a guy who tends to do most of their TV-Style writing -- he's a good writer, but he's not one of the top journalists still at the paper. The NY Times have farmed the work out to some of their bigger reporters (e.g. John Burns in particular, who is one of the best in the business).

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site