For delivery to offices of the Wall Street Journal: A mirror

We usually confine our postings about the deranged editorialists at the Wall Street Journal to material on their free offshoot, Opinionjournal.com. It would truly be a full-time job keeping track of the drivel on the main page, but every so often something cries out for a little commentary. Today's lead is about the BBC/Blair/WMD controversy. Some quick points [their quotes in italics]:

Dr. Kelly's testimony, however, clearly indicates that the BBC story misrepresented what he told the reporter.

And the basis on which you are accepting the frazzled testimony of a dead person as conclusive is what?*

But the Conservatives, smelling blood early on, have joined the BBC-led chorus questioning whether the government exaggerated intelligence claims on Iraq. And they have their own media megaphones, the highbrow Daily Telegraph and the tabloid Daily Mail among them. The latter on Saturday grotesquely ran a headline with the story about the Kelly suicide that read "Proud of Yourselves?" above photographs over Messrs. Blair, Campbell and Defense Minister Geoff Hoon. Mr. Bush can thank his lucky stars that he does not have problems of this magnitude.

Where to begin on this one...political parties with media megaphones? Couldn't happen in the US.

The Daily Telegraph is "highbrow?" This from the paper that introduced the world to the phrase "pure theatrical Viagra", with its theatre critic's drooling review of Nicole Kidman on the London stage.

A grotesque headline about a suicide. Wasn't there some paper that just wouldn't stopping spinning grotesque conspiracy theories about the Vince Foster suicide? Can't remember which one it was.

Mr. Bush can thank his lucky stars that he does not have problems of this magnitude.

This prompts us to ask, like Trent "all these problems" Lott was asked: what problems, exactly? An uppity media?

*UPDATE: Kelly could of course have been telling the truth. But the WSJ has no way of knowing that. In addition, there's a messy little detail that will have to be confronted if the BBC reporter Gilligan is be blamed for "sexing up" what Kelly told him: another BBC reporter, doing an separate report from Gilligan, got the same story. It just got less attention. This is made clear on a London Times online Q&A today:

Q: A BBC Newsnight reporter covered the same story as Andrew Gilligan. Why has she come under less criticism?

A: Susan Watts, Newsnight's Science Editor, whose source has also been confirmed as Dr Kelly - filed her report four days after Mr Gilligan's and it was seen by relatively few people. Mr Gilligan's report was on the Today programme, which is widely listened to and is expected to set the media agenda for the day - in this case it set it for six weeks.