WSJ blames News Corp critics, confuses phone hacking with WikiLeaks revelations

The Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal has published a bitter editorial methodically swiping at News Corps’ critics (in this order: “our competitors,” “British politicians now bemoaning media influence over politics”,  the BBC, the Guardian, British and American publications that don’t defend defamation claims in Singapore, the news non-profit ProPublica, the Bancroft family that formerly owned Dow Jones, US Attorney General Eric Holder, US officials prosecuting Haitian and Polish foreign bribery cases, “the liberal press” and, more specifically, the New York Times). And then there is this:

“We also trust that readers can see through the commercial and ideological motives of our competitor-critics. The Schadenfreude is so thick you can’t cut it with a chainsaw. Especially redolent are lectures about journalistic standards from publications that give Julian Assange and WikiLeaks their moral imprimatur. They want their readers to believe, based on no evidence, that the tabloid excesses of one publication somehow tarnish thousands of other News Corp journalists across the world.”

In casually trying to draw a moral equivalency (or, rather, an immoral equivalency) between illegally hacking a murdered girl’s phone for newspaper scoops — and allegedly bribing public officials to keep the tactic under wraps — and working with WikiLeaks to vet leaked government documents for context relevant to the public’s understanding of the execution of two wars and US foreign diplomacy, the Journal stretches credulity one non sequitur too far.

Never mind that the Journal editorial page has for months been calling for the prosecution of Julian Assange even as its news pages have been covering the stories WikiLeaks helped make possible. Or that this implication suggests the Journal has never knowingly published journalism originating from leaked classified government information. The Journal’s plea to the sensibilities of its readers must also leave them to assume this: If the paper is willing to lash out at News Corp critics in ways that even Rupert Murdoch himself has not, perhaps the Wall Street Journal is not so far removed from the culture of its imploding parent company as the editorial’s subhed — “A tabloid’s excesses don’t tarnish thousands of other journalists” — suggests.

UN rapporteur calls for end to criminal defamation laws

The United Nations special rapporteur for free expression Frank La Rue has called for the abolition of criminal defamation laws. Guatemalan lawyer La Rue also condemned the use of “national security” reasons to curb free expression:

In a report released today, LaRue comments:

The Special Rapporteur reiterates the call to all States to decriminalize defamation. Additionally, he underscores that protection of national security or countering terrorism cannot be used to justify restricting the right to expression unless it can be demonstrated that: (a) the expression is intended to incite imminent violence; (b) it is likely to incite such violence; and (c) there is a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the likelihood or occurrence of such violence.

Criminal defamation cases are frequently brought to silence criticism of authorities. Recent examples include actions brought against journalist Art Troitsky in Russia and anti death penalty campaigner Alan Shadrake in Singapore.

Alan Shadrake given six week sentence

British journalist Alan Shadrake has been sentenced to six weeks in prison and fined SGD$20,000 by a Singapore court,

Shadrake, 76, was earlier found guilty of contempt of court after he claimed in his book “Once a Jolly Hangman” that the Singaporean judiciary was not impartial in its application of the death penalty. He has been granted seven days to appeal the sentence.

Index on Censorship chief executive John Kampfner commented: “Alan Shadrake’s sentence once again shows Singapore’s desperate difficulties in dealing with criticism and free expression.”

SUPPORT INDEX'S WORK