"There is no doubt but that journalists are now in their version of the MP's expenses scandal." These are the opening lines of an editorial in today's Times calling for a serious and thorough investigation into the News of the World hacking scandal.
Also owned by Rupert Murdoch's News International, The Times has thus far deafeningly quiet about the practices of those working for News of the World.
"Before today, The Times, which, like the News of the World, is owned by News International, has taken the view that it ought not to comment on the issue of phone hacking."
Other News International titles have similarly failed to provide full coverage of the story, such as yesterday's Sun, which hid references to NoW's entanglement with Milly Dowler in a tiny column on page 2.
Now The Times has broken its silence, and added its voice to the widespread condemnation of the NoW:
"But anyone who has serious faith in the public purpose of journalism has to record his or her dissent from the behaviour that has now been alleged. Anyone who believes in the nobility of the trade of reporting the truth, the better to inform the readers, and anyone who believes in the contribution of vibrant comment to a raucous and well-informed democracy, has to be clear when a line has been crossed."
It also called for a thorough investigation into the case, proclaiming that "over and above the internal inquiry that will be conducted at News International, this matter now requires the most rigorous possible police inquiry".
But the paper shied away from condemning its sister title outright, stressing the number of unanswered questions still to be addressed:
"There is much that we still need to know. Were journalists at the News of the World involved or just their consultant Glenn Mulcaire? Was Milly Dowler's phone actually hacked or is it simply the case that Mulcaire had obtained her number? Did the News of the World and Mulcaire do the same in the case of the Soham victims and, if so, when? And given the reports of phone hacking by other national newspapers, how much of this was exception and how much, across the industry, the rule?"