Why must the Murdoch scandal be called "Rupertgate" or "Murdochgate"? Why can't rogue bloggers call it "Murdochgeddon"?
On page A-12 of the Wall Street Journal's print edition the lead editorial asked: "Do our media brethren really want to regulate how journalists gather the news?" That a really smooth way to divert attention away from the real crimes of possible extortion and perhaps even some political blackmail. Nice dodge, guys!
Note for fact checkers who want to play along at home: The Hearst quote at the beginning of this column can be found in Bartlett's Familiar Quotes (it is in the 125th Anniversary edition on page 702) and since they have one of the best fact checking teams in publishing; that's enough proof for the World's Laziest Journalist.
Do it yourself fact checkers are encouraged to view "Citizen Kane," and read "Citizen Hearst," by S. M. Swanberg, "The Making of Citizen Kane," by Robert L. Carringer, and "Lapdogs" (How the Press rolled over for Bush) by Eric Boehlert.
While your at it, check out this quote about the run-up to the Spanish American War found on page 140 of the Bantam Books paperback edition of "Citizen Hearst:" "In Washington, publicity-seeking Senators and Representatives were constantly guilty of indignant statements about Spanish cruelty and oppression based wholly on New York newspaper reports which were highly biased or downright fictitious."
The Columbia Journalism Review is conducting an informal survey this summer to determine http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/wsjs_lost_weekend.php
>the best film about journalism. We left a comment about our opinion of Network and we'll leave it to Pulitzer Prize winning film Critic Roger Ebert to remind them of "Citizen Kane."
If Fox News does ignore Murdochgate, then at some point won't that glaring omission become an example of substantiating evidence?
If Fox News is ordered to ignore Murdochgate, where can folks with inquiring minds learn more about this breaking story?