Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Chokes on Newsroom's Pulitzer Prize Hairball

Why no one's mentioned it I have no idea but the Wall Street Journal's editorial page has consistently pooh-pooh'd the whole backdating uproar as a mere accounting technicality, a bagatelle if you will.

For example, on January 10, 2007, we find the following there: "Question whether backdating is really the crime of the century, or merely a business curiosity blown way out of proportion by poorly reasoned coverage."

And, "All that backdating comes down to is a nonmaterial accounting irregularity... involving a defective judgment about whether 'in the money' options needed to undergo expensing."

And, ""Indeed, much of what is pejoratively called 'backdating' was actually undertaken in good faith."

It would have been kind of hard for the paper's editorial page staff not to notice that four of their very own news reporters last week received the Pulitzer Prize for their work in unearthing the backdating "curiosities" or, as the New York Times put it in the lead sentence of its story, "uncovering the unethical practices of business executives who had rewarded themselves millions of dollars by backdating stock options."

And, "the articles, by Charles Forelle, James Bandler, Mark Maremont and Steve Stecklow, have led to the federal investigation of more than 130 companies, and at least 70 top executives have lost their jobs."

In fact, the Pulitzer citation read, "Awarded to The Wall Street Journal for its creative and comprehensive probe into backdated stock options for business executives that triggered investigations, the ouster of top officials and widespread change in corporate America."

Like I said — better get out that hairball medicine.