Some things just leave me scratching my head.

In an interview with Robert Thomson, the new managing editor of Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, we find out that the Journal is gunning for The New York Times by way of its ability to be objective. Business Week reports:

Still, how can the Journal compete with the Times' much bigger newsroom? No worries, shrugs Thomson. "Journalists at The Wall Street Journal have the objective of being objective. At The New York Times, you have news with a skew. Or a skew with news."

This is a ludicrous assertion, albeit one that echoes his boss, Rupert Murdoch. Told that such talk sends some into seizures, Thomson concedes "there are great journalists at the Times," but the paper's "calcification of culture" gives the Journal an opportunity.

Now, I don't want to take sides here. But I'd say the Journal is as well-known for the conservative bent of its editorial pages as the Times is for its liberal editorials.

What Thomson is suggesting is that the Times' newsroom -- as distinct from its editorial team -- is less able to divorce itself from the paper's editorial positions than the Journal's newsroom. Business Week calls this "ludicrous." Maybe it is. And maybe it isn't.

My point: Who cares? Is objectivity of news reporting really where news organizations win and lose today? I don't think so. The wires provide plenty of plain vanilla news.

The big papers will have to be a lot more creative if they want to survive.