Limited News rather than News Limited?

What worries the Times (and other Murdoch haters) - so they claim - is that Mr Murdoch will use the Wall Street Journal, arguably a stand out publication, as yet another tool to further his countless financial and political agendas. They fear he will not only dumb it down but that he will be unforthcoming about publishing any adverse information about his business affairs. Limited News as it were, rather than News Limited.

The Times laughs off demands by the Bancroft family - who have a lock on 64 per cent of the voting shares at Dow Jones - for iron clad assurances from Mr Murdoch that he will preserve the independence of The Wall Street Journal’s news coverage. The Times reminds readers of a 1981 report, that claimed Murdoch gave identical assurances when he purchased The Times of London, but micromanaged news operations in any event.

The malice and envy of the Times continued to be drip fed to its readers. The very next day, June 26, the Times ran yet another page one feature (that filled yet another full page) on “Rupert Murdoch’s Dealings in China: It’s business and it’s personal”.

Filled with rage and jealousy, the Times assails Murdoch’s genius in successfully entering the Chinese media market. China is significantly different from western markets and the Times eviscerates Murdoch’s character by ridiculing what the mogul has done in order to get a toehold in that market. It blasts him for exercising proprietorial discretion when he dropped the (tiresomely China bashing) BBC from his Star TV network, in order to pander to the Bolsheviks in Beijing, yet interestingly the Times is silent about the well known bigots within the BBC who flout their alleged code of impartiality in reporting.

The Times lists business deals - be they with or without Chinese partners - which Murdoch entered, winning some and losing others, all the while unable to mouth that which it will not voice: Rupert outfoxed the competition. He beat Disney, Time Warner and Viacom at their own game. Period.

The venom continued three days later. On June 29, the Times wheeled out its mobile scud launcher in the name of well known columnist Paul Krugman, who fired a missile entitled "The Murdoch Factor". Bottom line: If Mr Murdoch does acquire The (Wall Street) Journal, it will be a dark day for America’s news media - and American democracy.

He could have added that the skies will fall in; Ebola will take hold; and gay couples will displace straight couples in the queue for IVF treatment.

Mr Krugman’s attack on citizen Murdoch lines up with the strategy that seems to have been cooked up by the Washington Post. Focus on Rupert’s capacity for influencing the public, and then assail him for exercising his “massive” power. Oh, and ignore similar behaviour by other media proprietors.

The Washington Post (through its online site, Slate.com) reminded readers of how Murdoch helped Prime Minister Tony Blair in 1997 win office (through mutual back scratching) and noted that while he was solidly behind Bush Jnr, his current predisposition is to spread his cash around both sides of Congress, evidenced by a fund raiser (or a “benefit” as the Americans say) for Hillary Clinton. So, you see Murdoch can’t possibly win. He is attacked if he supports George W. Bush and is defiled if he supports Hillary Clinton.

Mr Krugman despises Murdoch’s ability (via his Fox News Channel) to offer an alternative to the left wing views that contaminate National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting System (PBS). Not a word however from Mr Krugman on the benefits of diversity of views within the media.

Reminiscent of Arabs launching katyusha rockets from Gaza at Israel, Slate pummels the Internet with article after article badmouthing citizen Murdoch. Witness a few of its hate-filled web pages: 'Eight more reasons to distrust Murdoch" (May 8); "Can Murdoch pass the stink test?" (May 29); "More Murdoch Malefaction" (June 1); "If the Peach stole the Journal Cream" (June 5); "The Murdoch Journal" (June 22); "The Filth and the Fury" (June 22); "Composing Murdoch’s disclosure" (July 11) and "Homer Simpson has what the Bancrofts want" (July 13).

What Slate lacks in good prose and themes to command one’s attention throughout their dreary articles, it makes up for by sheer volume of low rent comments buttressed by its in-house anti-Australians.