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.

Many of the "military analysts" who explain wars and weapons programs to the public on CNN, NBC and other TV and radio networks are actually part of an Pentagon-orchestrated PR campaign, The New York Times tells us this weekend:

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

And now, a story that practically tells itself...

The following ran in today's New York Times. It's the tale of a response from Target, the giant retailer, to blogger Amy Jussel of Shaping Youth, who had called to complain about a Target advertisement. You have to read it to believe it.

Target offered an e-mail response:

“Unfortunately we are unable to respond to your inquiry because Target does not participate with nontraditional media outlets,” a public relations person wrote to ShapingYouth.

“This practice,” the public relations person added, “is in place to allow us to focus on publications that reach our core guest,” as Target refers to its shoppers.

It was bound to happen... Reporters are becoming brands.

The New York Observer just did a fascinating piece about this phenomenon taking hold at The New York Times, the newspaper perhaps most unlikely to allow its own reporters to develop personas beyond the institution.

But it's happening. Thanks to the blogosphere, reporters at the NYT -- and elsewhere -- are stepping beyond their Mother Ships to create their own followings. The article explains:

For those who think Web 2.0 is a flash in the pan, who worry that traditional media really aren't embracing these new platforms, you've simply got to see this video.

In it, New York Times technology columnist David Pogue presents his, er, take on the iPhone.

It's reporting like you've never seen it before. The future of journalism, perhaps. Then again, perhaps not. It is The New York Times, however. So this says something...

I'm just not sure what.

(For those interested, you can read my personal reasons for not buying an iPhone on my .farrell blog.)

The purpose of this blog is not media criticism; we're happy to leave that to others. But I read a page one story in The New York Times today that was such a blatant fudge, that it's illustrative of how spin can find its way into even the most important international stories.

Titled "Rebuke in Iran To Its President On Nuclear Role," this story talked about how two "hard-line newspapers" had called on Iran's president to "stay out of all matters nuclear."

Here's the paragraph that got me scratching my head:

In the hazy world of Iranian politics, such a public rebuke was seen as a sign that the supreme leader -- who has final say on all matters of state -- might no longer support the president as the public face of defiance to the West.

Overt politics aside, the uproar over The New York Times' decision to publish a story on the secret U.S. government program to track terrorist money highlights a big problem the news media are facing these days.

Poor PR.

Yes, poor PR. What does that have to do with a national security issue like this, you ask? Everything.

In the Times last Sunday, the newspaper's public editor, Byron Calame, devoted his column to the decision to publish the story. I found one comment to be particularly telling.

Roughly 1,000 e-mails have come to me, about 85 percent of them critical of the decision to publish the story and a large fraction venomous.

If anyone still doubts that blogs are an effective corporate communications vehicle, just look at GM's recent use of its FYI blog.

I was reading Steve Rubel's fine Micro Persuasion blog this morning when I saw his link to an Automotive News story titled, "GM posts column rebuttal on blog."  Here's how the story described what GM was using its blog to address:

At the end of 2005, I posted on CNBC adding full company names to its broadcast ticker -- a move that took largely useless information and made it useful to the general public.

In that post, I also talked about another anachronism -- newspaper stock tables. 

When was the last time you looked up a stock quote in a newspaper?

I’d be surprised if 1 in 100 can remember.  However, newspapers continue to print these tables at a tremendous cost — newsprint accounts for a very large percentage of total expense to newspaper companies.  Perhaps it’s no surprise, then, that newspapers are struggling so badly.

The New York Times published a story yesterday that caught my eye.  It talked about how the Internet is giving interview subjects the power to respond to articles in a new way.  News sources are putting transcripts of their interviews with reporters online and posting entire e-mail interview threads on their blogs.

There is one lively situation the Times story discusses in which Mark Cuban was interviewed electronically for an NYT story and, unhappy with the result, posted the interview on his blog. Feel free to click to Cuban's post.  It's lively reading.  I'm not suggesting that such tactics ought to be widely practiced.  It is a powerful way to make a point, but it may come at the expense of your relationship with the reporter.

What I am suggesting is this: Watch what you write!