And in opposite world…

Image by Chris Riddell of the Guardian

Ed Pilkington, The Guardian:

The Wall Street Journal has attempted to redirect the criticism that has been levelled against its owner, Rupert Murdoch, against the journalists who uncovered the illegal phone hacking and bribery at the News of the World.

In an angry unsigned editorial, the paper accuses the Guardian and the BBC of driving the phone hacking story for “commercial and ideological motives”. It implies that the Guardian did not have the right to make “lectures about journalistic standards” because of this newspaper’s involvement in publishing the WikiLeaks embassy cables.
…
The editorial provoked an instant outpouring of comment on Twitter, much of it unfavourable. As one tweet, by Jesse Elsinger, put it: “Best adj to use for this WSJ editorial: delusional, oedipal, sycophantic or craven?”

I vote for psychotic.

There is almost nothing on this story at FreeRepublic. That tells you just how big this story is.

BTW, one correction:

Articles in the Guardian of Tuesday 12 July incorrectly reported that the Sun newspaper had obtained information on the medical condition of Gordon Brown’s son from his medical records. In fact the information came from a different source and the Guardian apologises for its error (The Brown files: How Murdoch papers targeted ex-PM’s family, 12 July, page 1; When Brown decided that the Sun was out to destroy him politically, 12 July, page 2).

Whatever. It was scummy to publish an article about a sick child, even if the information was obtained legally.