I woke up to this in the L.A. Times this morning: Mr. Murdoch: Clear out of the Street by Tim Rutten, someone who IMHO, nails it most of the time. Paddy's post below about what's real news vs. what is a simply another fear-mongering splashy news cycle inspired me to expand the discussion to include Rupert, who drenches, soaks, and nearly drowns us with his disgraceful brand of incessant self-serving splashdom and worse. Mr. Rutten discusses the dire consequences of Rupert Murdoch's possible success in purchasing the Wall Street Journal.

Rupert Murdoch should not be given control of Dow Jones and the Wall Street Journal for a number of compelling reasons. First of all, whatever his assurances to the contrary, the man has a demonstrated history of intervening in his journalistic and publishing enterprises in ways calculated to serve his other business interests.
...
The first overarching public question is whether we want the nation's — indeed, the world's — single most important source of financial news in the hands of an owner, like Murdoch, who has a documented history not simply of meddling with his publications but also of meddling for his own financial gain.
...
[Because of Murdoch] we have not only the Fox contingent of ranters and distorters, but also the CNN demagogues and faux-populist snarlers, such as Lou Dobbs, Nancy Grace and Glenn Beck.

Similarly, Murdoch's New York Post has helped create a public appetite for a certain form of vicious and self-serving gossip.
...
Thus the formerly deviant joins the mainstream and the whole social current becomes that much more abrasive and polluted.

Thanks, Rupert.
...
Do we now want him to control our single most important source of information on business and economics?

NO.