Critics misguided for slamming WSJ's Steiger

TheDeal.com executive editor Yvette Kantrow wonders what was behind a New York Times story earlier this week that wrote about the fact that Wall Street Journal managing editor Paul Steiger knew that News Corp. had made a $5 billion offer for the Journal’s parent company Dow Jones & Co. but didn’t disclose it to journalists so they could write about it.

She wonders if the media covering the story are holding their competitors to a higher standard than they would themselves.

Kantrow wrote, “In the meantime, media watchers from BusinessWeek’s Jon Fine to Columbia Journalism Review’s Audit to a gaggle of academics rounded up by Crain’s New York Business wagged their fingers at Steiger for holding news of the bid as if the issue were absolutely cut-and-dried. ‘It upsets my stomach,’ New York University’s Mitchell Stevens told Crain’s. Well, that sheds light.

“A blogger, Dealbreaker.com, actually offered an explanation for Steiger’s decision: the law. ‘Federal disclosure rules prohibit public companies and their officers from disclosing material information except through press releases filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.’ As a corporate officer, Steiger could have run afoul of that if he went with the story, Dealbreaker opined.

“We don’t know if Dealbreaker is right or not, though a WSJ story two days later suggested it is. Still, it would have been an angle for the Times explore. But the Times never offers explanations as to why Steiger and his editors held onto the news, choosing instead to dwell on the options trading. Also left unexplored: Rupert Murdoch’s role. After all, since Murdoch informed Steiger of the bid in a ‘confidential’ e-mail, why hasn’t he been held responsible for its dissemination? Is it perhaps that the Times is more interested in holding the WSJ to a higher standard than News Corp.?”

Read more here.