Murdoch obviously has not "destroyed" the London Times, even if there are some claims that he did not respect its editorial integrity in every case. Why would he indeed destroy the Journal? Surely he can be counted on to behave as a rational economic actor.

While we are on the topic, when has the NYTimes written skeptically or candidly about the manifest economic failures of the stewardship of Pinch Sulzberger?

Shirley you jest, Murdock is like a bull in a china shop.

Does any rational person watch faux news and believe them?

Destroyed in an economic sense? No - but just because something is good at making money doesn't mean it hasn't been destroyed. The Times is now a cheap tabloid that one would not turn to for quality news.