We just love a good, old-fashioned newspaper rivalry.

Which is why we were particularly delighted this morning to pick up the New York Post and find that they'd lambasted the Daily News for their unfair depiction of the innocent gossip pawn, Jared Paul Stern, the Page Sixer accused—and now cleared—of extorting billionaire Ron Burkle:

Daily News really can't be blamed for not having all the facts. The sad tabloid, whose circulation is dropping faster than a prom dress, purposefully misleads its readers when it covers The Post. Red-faced editors at the News were avoiding questions yesterday after claiming their paper had "first disclosed" details of the meetings between former Page Six contributor Jared Paul Stern and supermarket billionaire Ron Burkle, which led to a federal investigation of Stern that's now been dropped. The Post actually broke the story on its Web site on April 6, 2006, the day before the News published it. The News also took credit for revealing that "other Page Six employees had received free trips . . . from companies and personalities featured in the column." This is shameless hypocrisy in light of the fact that certain Daily News columnists are still suntanned from their junkets to the Raffles Canouan resort in the Grenadines; to Istanbul, Turkey; and Qatar on the Red Sea. Detailed queries to usually loquacious News Editor-in-Chief Martin Dunn weren't returned yesterday. Maybe he was freeloading on a beach somewhere.

Wow, you gotta admire the way the worked the phrase "dropping faster than a prom dress" in there. Anything that rings of childish name calling and schoolyard insults certainly rings dignified to us.

And never mind that the Post themselves suspended Stern as soon as initially rumors surfaced, only to officially fire him shortly thereafter. Also, never mind that while Stern isn't officially being charged with a crime, he's not exactly the poster-boy for journalistic ethics. (He may not have actually extorted funds from Burkle, but he seemed to have no problem with pocketing his money, either—supposedly for a joint "business venture," but more likely as a quid pro quo in exchange for "protecting" Burkle from bad press).

Anyhow, we're just amused to see the Post rush to Stern's defense, in time to get back on Stern's good side (before all the lawsuits begin!) and, of course, to knock their closest competitor. But they better hope they don't have any "freeloading" secrets to hide—because we just can't wait until Martin Dunn gets back from his all-expenses paid vacay to issue a scathing rebuttal.