I thought the Jordan apologists were only confined to the left-leaning mainstream.  Imagine my surprise when I read this (free email subscription req):

More troubling to us is that Mr. Jordan seems to have "resigned," if in fact he wasn't forced out, for what hardly looks like a hanging offense. It is true that Mr. Jordan has a knack for indefensible remarks, including a 2003 New York Times op-ed in which he admitted that CNN had remained silent about Saddam's atrocities in order to maintain its access in Baghdad. That really was a firing offense. But CNN stood by Mr. Jordan back then--in part, one suspects, because his confession implicated the whole news organization. Now CNN is throwing Mr. Jordan overboard for this much slighter transgression, despite faithful service through his entire adult career.

That may be old-fashioned damage control. But it does not speak well of CNN that it apparently allowed itself to be stampeded by this Internet and talk-show crew. Of course the network must be responsive to its audience and ratings. But it has other obligations, too, chief among them to show the good judgment and sense of proportion that distinguishes professional journalism from the enthusiasms and vendettas of amateurs.

No doubt this point of view will get us described as part of the "mainstream media." But we'll take that as a compliment since we've long believed that these columns do in fact represent the American mainstream. We hope readers buy our newspaper because we make grown-up decisions about what is newsworthy, and what isn't.

I tell ya; if there is one thing that Bill O'Reilly says that you can take to the bank, it's his saying about the powerful protecting the powerful.  There isn't any doubt in my mind that WSJ heard about Jordan on Friday night and said, "That could be us one day."

For the WSJ to dismiss the blogosphere as amateurs with "vendettas" shows a denial of thee transformation of media and journalism that is taking place, and they come off as illogical by doing so.  How is it "good judgement" for CNN to allow someone who has been shrouded in controversy and criticism several times before - one of which WSJ said was a firable offense, I might add - to keep his job when he goes overseas to a public forum with U.S. politicans and journalists present and accuses the U.S. military of deliberately targeting journalists with no evidence supporting this whatsoever?  That's "good judgement" to you?

After his accusations are leaked to the internet, he then stonewalls the people who hold him accountable for his statements, something that the mainstream media (yes, that's you, WSJ) didn't want to do, because according to the High Court of the Wall Street Journal Editoral Board, it wasn't "a journalistic felony".  If left to them, the public has the right to know everything except what they are doing, and what they are saying.  Instead of encouraging accountability, the WSJ would rather duck it.  It's amazing when "amateurs" show more integrity than international media companies that have been "serving the public" for decades.

They don't realize this, but the WSJ might have given us a look at their employment practices.  It makes a lot of sense to keep someone employed that continues to embarrass the company time and time again, but since it wasn't that bad, to wait until he REALLY embarrasses the company.   The WSJ should ask the New York Times if that approach worked with Jayson Blair.

Fortunately for the public, but unfortunately for the WSJ, they nor any of the MSM can totally control what is considered news and what isn't anymore.  If left up to the HCOTWSJEB, no one would have heard about this incident, with the exception of their email diary readers.  It's not a coincidence that less people are reading newspapers and watching network news and are looking to alternative sources for information.  Some of them are doing the journalism that the MSM used to do.
AND ANOTHER THING:  I couldn't help but notice Prof. Reynolds's column on Governor Phil Bresden on OpinionJournal from Sunday.  That means the WSJ took it upon themselves to rip a bunch of "amateurs" the day after featuring one of the most popular "amateurs" on the internet. 

And not to take away from Reynolds's scholarly work and accomplishments, but it's doubtful that Reynolds would have been a guest columnist for WSJ if it wasn't for Instapundit.  In fact, Instapundit was listed and linked at the bottom of the column when describing him.  If I were Reynolds, I'd be a bit insulted.

Also, what is "Best Of The Web" supposed to be?  Nothing more than a collection of web links and opinions, similar to...BLOGS!  And Taranto frequently quotes bloggers and gathers information off of their sites. 

It makes you wonder if the editorial board was lobotomized over the weekend.