Dan Sabbagh notes that toward the bottom of his column today:
On Tuesday, the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal looked like it was hitting back, with a page 7 report in its European edition which said that in 2000 the Sunday Mirror was involved in paying a police officer £50 in exchange for information about the arrest of Tim Blackstone, a PR professional, who was the brother of a Labour peer. High up, in the third paragraph of the already prominent report, the Journal noted that the editor of the Sunday Mirror at the time was Myler, who was also pictured in the title.
Politico media reporter Keach Hagey also thought this one smelled funny, linking to the Journal story and saying this on Twitter:
Amazing WSJ twofer on allegations of (Sunday) Mirror bribery: argues “everybody did it” and dings Colin Myler
A couple of weeks ago, I defended the Journal from the over-the-top criticism of Joe Nocera.
But this is the kind of thing that gives me pause. As I’ve written, whether serious crimes were committed at non-News Corp. papers is clearly a real story. This one doesn’t get there.
(UPDATE 11:08: I’ve made some copy edits here and a modification to the last couple of graphs that got left out because I screwed up Moveable Type somehow.)
It is curious. It is as if there are two Wall Street Journals. Journal A, with its oblivious little committee, goes about its business, apparently unaware that Journal B is playing a different game, including but perhaps not limited to tenaciously targeting the enemies. I noted strange patterns after News Corp. had a rating problem, but of course I didn't say anything.
I have seen enough to say that I think there should be an investigation of The Wall Street Journal to see exactly what the games are. If Murdoch were smart--it is never too late to act smart anyway--he would hire away the Public Editor of The New York Times to work over all his American media properties.
Last week, The NYT Public Editor did outstanding work on redacted e-mails. Just outstanding. His assistant is good too. America should have a national media council with the power to initiate investigations and compel testimony. All of the rackets are getting too big and too subtle for the meager resources that exist to cope.
#1 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Wed 3 Aug 2011 at 11:27 AM
Ryan, The correction at the end of The WSJ story online reinforces the fact that lawyer Jane has precise contemporaneous notes. From her firm's site: "Jane [Phillips] has been consistently recommended as a "Leading Junior" in Defamation/Privacy in Chambers and Partners Guide to the Legal Profession and in the Legal 500 Directory and Legal Experts. [...]
Blackstone v. MGN Limited (2000) – represented the successful Claimant who obtained £50,000 damages against the Sunday Mirror arising out an article concerning a marital dispute."
WSJ: Corrections & Amplifications
Lawyer Jane Phillips says that in her closing argument, she told the jury, "It appears from Mr. Luckett's evidence that it is the police source, who he refused to identify, who is responsible for this information leaking into the public domain in the first place. This policeman or woman sold false information to the Sunday Mirror for about £50." An earlier version of this article incorrectly quoted her as saying, "It appears from Mr. Luckett's evidence that it is the police force, who he refused to identify, who is responsible for this information leaking into the public domain in the first place. This policeman or woman sold forth information to the Sunday Mirror for about £50."
#2 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Wed 3 Aug 2011 at 02:46 PM
As I read that, she doesn't have notes of a police bribe, just notes that she told a jury she suspected a policeman had been bribed.
Not enough to write a news story about. If I had a nickel for every time I've heard a defense lawyer suggest pure poppycock to jurors, I wouldn't have to work for a living any more.
#3 Posted by Harry Eagar, CJR on Thu 11 Aug 2011 at 12:35 AM