It seems the Wall Street Journal's editorial page solicited the piece, and also reported on it in the news section. That did not please Orville Schell, dean of UC Berkeley's Graduate School of Journalism:
"It's a little funny that it's such a Bushy paper and this turned out to be such a nice little coup for the Bush administration. The Journal's editorial page, which is so demonstrably pro-Bush, must be highly gratified by their own instrumentality in this matter."
As you continue reading the article, you get the feeling that something sinister has happened. That damned right-wing media has reached its tentacles into the very capitals of Europe, and tricked the leaders into actually expressing their views on a matter of grave importance!
But then, in the 16th graph of a 21-graph story, you find this out:
Other newspapers face the same issue: Last Saturday, for example, the Los Angeles Times published a front-page news story about the Pentagon quietly considering the use of nuclear weapons in Iraq that was based on a piece by analyst William Arkin that was published the next day in the Opinion section.
Former Times editor Michael Parks, who now directs the journalism program at USC's Annenberg School of Communications, said many analogous situations immediately come to mind.
"If somebody from the administration gets on one of those invited Sunday-morning chat shows on the networks, what they say is fair game for news reporting, including by the network that hosts the show," Parks said. "Did the person go on intending to make news? Yes, but the person hosting the show was hoping to get news and not just to illuminate their audience. It just gets a little messy when they make more news than you expect, as happened here."
But the Times lets Dr. Schell speak again:
Even with disclosure, Berkeley's Schell said, "you wish they'd commissioned the piece and let somebody else report it. It's a bit odd to call a press conference and then write about it. Still, there is a value in a catalytic question that galvanizes a collective answer. More than anything else, this signals the new power of a globalized media."
So let me get this straight: A right-leaning editorial section scores a major news coup that is factually correct, and a leading light of the academic wing of journalism suddenly questions what has been standard operating procedure in the news business for decades. And then he suggests that this ancient practice somehow signals the "new power of a globalized media." Pfft.
After all, nearly two hundred years ago, Napoleon wrote these words:
"Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets."
It was nice to see the Journal's Paul Gigot get the last word:
"If any media critics want to give us credit for orchestrating the views of eight different European leaders," he said, "we'll take it."
I love it.
UPDATE: Susanna Cornett of Cut on the Bias fame has a post that includes links to WSJ stories about the controversy. I wonder why Romenesko, where I found the LAT story above, hasn't included them in its coverage?
