WSJ Leakage?

Unless you're a denizen of Greater Wingnuttia, you probably consider the editorial stance of The Wall Street Journal either nauseatingly or laughably far to the right, depending on your mood. This is not something any sane person argues about.

The claim has long been, even among many liberals, that the firewall between the opinion and news departments at the WSJ is quite robust, that the rest of the reporting and analysis is not distorted by a pronounced conservative bias. Worries about the robustness flared when Rupert Murdoch announced that he wanted to buy the WSJ, and while he assured the world that he had no interest in gambling with the WSJ's reputation as a news source, I'd have to say that at least in my mind, there has been a tickle that has never gone away ever since Murdoch sealed the deal. I mean, Fox News? Anyone? Anyone?

I now leap upon a piece of evidence that supports my theory.

Lawrence Lessig, blogging today, begins:

I got off the plane from Boston to find my inbox filled with anger about an article in the Wall Street Journal. To those who were angry, I hope you will direct any anger at the Wall Street Journal after you read what follows.

The article is an indirect effort to gin up a drama about a drama about an alleged shift in Obama's policies about network neutrality. What's the evidence for the shift? That Google allegedly is negotiating for faster service on some network pipes. And that "prominent Internet scholars, some of whom have advised President-elect Barack Obama on technology issues, have softened their views on the subject."

Who are these "Internet scholars"? Me. And of course, because I have "softened" my views about network neutrality, and because I advised the Obama campaign about technology issues during the primary, it follows (and obviously so) that Obama too must be going soft on network neutrality.

Lessig goes on to dispute how the WSJ article characterized him and his alleged "softening," politely saying, "… I do know something about my own views, and what the Journal has done here is really extraordinary."

If you share my interest in the issue of Net Neutrality (and really, who doesn't want to be clear on the difference between edge caching and tiered service?), there's a lot more to be had. Start by reading the rest of Lessig's post, read the responding post on Google's Public Policy Blog, and read the source post for these links on Ars Technica, which also rebuts the WSJ article. There are more links at the bottom of the Google post, all of which take issue with the WSJ article and offer coherent and well-supported reponses.

All posts by me on Net Neutrality are available by clicking the NET NEUTRALITY link in the list of labels at the bottom of this post. You'll see this one at the top, and the rest following below, most recent first.

(h/t: Buzz Out Loud, podcast #872)