Arthur Brisbane, The New York Times public editor, defended the newspaper's recent magazine story on Rupert Murdoch's News of the World and its hacking of royal family cell phone voicemails.

News of the World editors have criticized the Times story that posted Sept. 1 online and ran Sept. 5 in print, claiming it is old news and an attempt by the Times to go after Murdoch, whose Wall Street Journal is in a tough circulation battle with the Times in New York.

But Brisbane contends in his Sunday column the story is fair and accurate, writing:

The story, in my view, did rely heavily on unnamed sources. Roughly two-thirds of the attributions relating to The News of the World were to anonymous individuals or groups. And in the thread of the story dealing with the Scotland Yard investigation, more than 80 percent of the attributions were anonymous.

That said, the story was grounded in very strong evidence. One former News of the World reporter, Sean Hoare, was a direct and named witness. Another former reporter, Matt Driscoll, said he witnessed an editor in possession of a soccer star's phone records, albeit records that were obtained by means other than phone-hacking. The Times reported that both of these witnesses had been fired by The News of the World -- information that helped readers make their own judgments about credibility.

He later stated:

So, on substance, I believe The Times's account stood on solid ground. It went beyond a rehash with new sources and a comprehensive treatment. The larger question of whether the story was colored by the rivalry with Mr. Murdoch is more a matter of appearances.