I actually thought the WSJ letter writers were rather wisely restrained — their request was that the separation between news and editorial (very real internally) be made clearer to readers, including by separating recommendation list. This snide response ignores that request.
The WSJ news side writers seemed at pains to not be trying to cancel anyone — they just didn’t want to have to explain a fundamentally unrelated (and frankly, often not very good) product to the people they deal with. Nobody blames the WSJ news side for other Murdoch properties.
The one valid complaint I think the opinion writers have is that the letter leaked. This is an internal dispute, and my view is internal disputes should be handled internally (old fashioned, I know.) But, documents leak, especially when many people have them.
The likelihood that the letter would leak is a reason it was good that the requests in the letter were well-considered!
Finally, as someone with deep reservations about what has happened at the NYT, I think it’s important to have alternative models for how you express objections about content that’s also being published under your brand.
