Taking WSJ to task

Today's Wall Street Journal has an editorial about the nuclear disclosure provided by North Korea that complains that North Korea hasn't really told us anything about its nuclear endeavors. I wonder why, if the editors have such angst about the lack of disclosure by N. Korea, why didn't they give the story more play.

The main article was on page A7 (sorry, I can't link to it) while the editorial was on page A12. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121452352574509029.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

Why wasn't the story given better play? Say, instead of the Race and crash demolition derby on page 1, put the nuclear story. Surely, the nuclear story has more importance, especially if the editors deem it necessary to devote hard-earned ink to writing editorials. How about newspapers tell us the news instead of editorializing it? I've found this problem in a lot of smaller, less prestigious newspapers, but I would think WSJ would do better.

If editors care enough to write editorials, the subject matter ought to be about some story they've told us about first. Hiding behind the editorial pages smacks of lack of its own investigative reporting. Here the WSJ did cover it, but I would have expected the story to be on the front page instead of the smash derby story.