Monday, July 18, 2011

WSJ and Fox & Friends defend Murdoch

I wouldn't say that I've ever looked to Steve Doocy for credibility on..well anything, but even he must be embarrassed by his blatant attempt to misconstrue the phone-hacking scandal. Between his attempt to make News Corps look like the victims of phone hacking, rather then the perpetrators of systematic criminal activity, and the pretty hilarious Wall Street Journal editorial decrying the media for paying attention and therefore threatening the very foundation of the first amendment, I'm starting to think Murdoch doesn't want readers noticing the man behind the curtain.

WSJ and Fox defend Murdoch:
First, there was a stunning "Fox and Friends" segment Friday in which guest Robert Dilenschneider compared the News of the World's scandal to a set of recent corporate security breaches. "It's a hacking scandal; it can't be denied," he said. "Why are so many people are piling on at this point? Shouldn't we get beyond it and really deal with the issue of hacking? Citicorp has been hacked into. Bank of America has been hacked into. American Express has been hacked into. We've got a serious hacking problem in this country." To which host Steve Doocy replied, "This happened a long time ago. At a tabloid. In London. Somebody did something really bad and the company reacted... They're piling on." Apparently Fox News has a bit of trouble distinguishing its hackees from its hackers.

Now, in a Monday Wall Street Journal editorial on "News and Its Critics" that borders on brilliant satire, the Murdoch-owned paper rails on about how "our competitors are using the phone-hacking years ago at a British corner of News Corp. to assail the Journal, and perhaps injure press freedom in general." That's right, haters, when you criticize an organization that breaks into a murdered girl's voicemails, and believes paying off cops and tampering with individual privacy is "part of the game," you're messing with the First Amendment itself. Though the editorial is unsigned, one can't help noting its spiritual kinship with the persuasive rhetoric of that legendary debater, Eric "Otter" Stratton, who once noted, "The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules or took a few liberties... You can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few sick, perverted individuals... for isn't this an indictment of our entire American society?"
Fox and Freinds segment:

First of all, I love that Bob Dilenschneider is introduced as a PR expert. I don't know about you, but I always look to PR firms for information on data security. Ironically though, it's Fox and WSJ's attempts to minimize the scandal that actually make me want to pay more attention. Can't wait to see what spin they put on the story next.


  1. That's what bothers me about it, too, I think. The need to downplay the severity of what happened. Why?

  2. And getting people to ask questions is definitely not how you get a scandal to go away. lol


What's on your mind?