Other than the New York Post perhaps, the Wall Street Journal has been the most blog friendly major newspaper. That ended today with their editorial on the Eason Jordan Affair. They seemed to be in a circling wagons mode, even though bloggers, for the most part, had not called for Jordan’s resignation but for the production of the video tape of the Davos session. One can assume, considering Jordan’s quick dismissal, that the tape did not exonerate him. Also, it is clear that this was not the first time the CNN executive had recited such calumnies.
So why did the Journal take such a dark view of the blogosphere? Is it because they too now fear the power of the blogs? The reference to “grown-up decisions” that newspapers must make, the implication being that bloggers aren’t grown-ups, sounds particularly jejune and defensive. Do they think that we are not grown-ups? Unfortunately for me, I’m feeling a little too grown-up today, sitting up in bed typing this after an operation. I am watching Hugh Hewitt, Glenn Reyolds and John Hinderaker on Kudlow & Company. They sound like grown-ups to me, but maybe I’m missing something. I think the Journal should be should be ashamed of itself.
UPDATE: I would like to point that I do not assume that the WSJ has changed its attitude toward blogs forever. I rather doubt it, in fact. That is why I used the title “Yet Another Sea Change?” (with a question mark). I agree with Austin Bay that there is more to be known about this subject in general.