It's different because Assange and Wikileaks have a heck of a stronger moral high ground to stand on than Murdoch media. More on that in a moment.
Obviously we're well past the point where anyone can say the hacking was an isolated incident on just one part of the Murdoch media empire. The excuse being offered by cable news channel Sky News is that they stand by their crimes because they were in the best interest of the public.
"We stand by these actions as editorially justified and in the public interest," the head of Sky News, John Ryley, said in a statement.Now that's contrition.
Maybe evidence acquired illegally in the UK will hold up in court, but that presents some serious problems in the US. Not to mention the ethics, and overall creepiness, of it.
It's interesting that the Murdoch media network has been so hard on Julian Assange and Wikileaks yet surprise, surprise, they have a great excuse for themselves. After all, what's more important: someone lying about a death to get the insurance money (the Murdoch paper's excuse) or an administration's lies about the justification for war (Wikileak's excuse)?
Huh? What's that answer, Rupert? Speak a little louder so we can all appreciate the full difference.
UK news channel Sky News said Thursday it had authorized its journalists to hack into the e-mail of individual members of the public on two occasions.Now that Sky has admitted to breaking the law, when will Scotland Yard arrest someone?
John Ryley, head of Sky News, said the instances involved suspected criminal activity.
"We stand by these actions as editorially justified and in the public interest," he said in a statement. "We do not take such decisions lightly or frequently."
NOTE FROM JOHN: Now that we know that the culture of corruption permeated a number of Murdoch's media ventures, it's fair to ask whether Murdoch's other media ventures, including FOX News and the Wall Street Journal, bit from the same fruit of the poisonous tree. And the nerve of Sky News to puff up its chest and suggest that illegal domestic spying by a newspaper is "editorially justified." Really, is that how it works now? We no longer go to the authorities in order to hack into someone's email, we simply ask our editor.
And why is this man John Ryley still the head of Sky News, and not sitting in jail somewhere? Do Fox News and the WSJ agree with Murdoch's man Ryley that it's okay to hack someone's email if it's "editorially justified" and in the public interest? I'm sure some would argue that it's editorially justified and in the public interest - especially after all of this - to know what's in the email files of Murdoch and his senior staff at Fox and the WSJ, if only to know how far this conspiracy goes. Does that make it right?