In its coverage of the News of the World hacking scandal, does the Wall Street Journal have an obligation to disclose?

Similar questions: coverage News World hacking scandal Wall Street Journal obligation disclose.

Good way to get fired, i'd think. They might run a disclaimer on page 22 of the business section in small print.

Reputable papers do. I see it in the Washington Post all the time, when they have to cover scandals at Kaplan, a test-prep company owned by the Post. Now, it's a bit trickier with Murdoch, since his media holdings are so vast.

Having to do it with every TV show and movie from Fox would get tedious fast. They're probably not obligated to give a hat-tip to Murdoch every time they mention The Simpsons. But it's relevant with news, and I think they'll find that it's not such a hardship.

You throw it into the third paragraph. Your readers already know. You don't even need a disclaimer that you're not in the line of management and that their mistakes don't reflect on you.

Your readers already know all about it, and honesty works best. Cover it up and it looks like you're covering it up.

I would have said that they could also just ignore it as a non-story, but they can't ignore that the 168 year old newspaper is being shut down over this:reuters.com/article/2011/07/07/us-newsco... schadenfreude in me wants to see more humiliation in their humility, and it's too bad that vast numbers of reporters are being laid off so that Murdoch can cleanse his conscience. Or rather, cleanse his image, because the person who most needs to be fired from that paper is the only one who gets to keep his job. Com/article/2011/07/07/us-newscorp-notw-text-idUSTRE7664UW20110707.

It is an admission of guilt on the part of the paper; they're pretty clear about it. You can easily read between the lines that Murdoch is saying he should have closed it earlier. But that's as high as it's going to go.It's a big, big gesture, and there's plenty of plausible deniability between Murdoch and the top brass at the paper.

He didn't encourage it; he just allowed it to happen while he was focused on other things. I'd love to see him prosecuted for it, but it ain't gonna happen.

Hard question to answer. Isn’t it generally known that Murdoch owns the WSJ? But, it’s not generally known that the WSF CEO was involved, nor what his involvement is.It must be very difficult to report on yourself, report that you did something illegal.

I would never report on myself…. Few people would voluntarily report that they committed a crime. I can’t answer your question, except to say if it was me…I would never confess to a crime until I was found out.

I think they do....but then I think that all media outlets should disclose the facts when they have had an issue that involves anything illegal, anything slanted to the right or the left politically or that indicates anything but the pure, unbiased truth in their reporting.

None of his papers feel obligated to disclose other truths that are damaging to their propaganda...

Obligations" are such funky things. I read a short review of a book on wired.com yesterday, in which they noted that the place was so secret that they didn't tell President Clinton certain things because THEY decided "he didn't need to know. " What we have walked into (after all of our wanting to have it both ways for so long) is that folks now decide what they want to do and do it, and figure out their excuses later .. .

If they've caught. I'd expect that same attitude from the WSJ editor that we had from the NOTW editor (except that the latter got caught. ) .

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.