Just the latest example of how once neutral (and once deeply respected) WSJ newsroom now openly leans right in the wake of its Rupert Murdoch purchase.

In Saturday's newspaper, the Journal reported on Obama's 90-minute sparring session with House Republicans which was covered on national TV. The near universal, chattering class consensus was that Obama came out out the winner. In fact, GOP aides privately conceded they never should have allowed TV cameras to broadcast the event, because of how well Obama performed. (How well? So well Fox News had to cut away from it.)

But take a look at how the Journal “reported” the event:

Privately, Republicans welcomed the exchanges, many of which turned on policy nitty-gritty. The meeting elevated members of the House minority to Mr. Obama's footing and neutralized the Democratic line that the GOP is “the party of 'No,' ” said one Republican strategist.

Surprise! According to an anonymous GOP strategist, the session was a success for the GOP.

A couple things. Why on earth would the Journal grant anonymity to a GOP strategist who's simply pushing obvious talking points? (i.e. Our side did great.) Is that really such coveted information that the Journal should allow the source to go un-named?

But secondly, and more importantly, what did Democrats “privately” think of the session? Oops, the Journal forgot to find out. Murdoch's daily only quotes a GOP strategist to find out how the session went.

It's funny how liberal media critics are always proven right.