While I don't know Rupert, I think he's one of the biggest piles of trash where objective reporting is concerned. That said, this article seems stupid and I'm confounded by the fact that in one sentence the author describes not ever seeing anyone compare Rupert to a genocidal maniac, but then describes his "offhanded" remark regarding comparisons between Rupert and Stalin as being unfair to Stalin. Simply put: that's a comparison. A minor detail when placed in a fuller context perhaps, but come on!

Agreed,

Murdoch is unfairly lambasted as the head of News Corp by the Times because of his control of Fox News. The Wall Street Journal will stay as legit of a news source as pre-Murdoch.

Anyone who doesn't think Rupert the Ugly will interfere with the Wall Street Journal is either a Murdoch suck-up or isn't paying attention. The Ugly One turns everything he buys to crap, not just Fox News. He is a shameless liar who will do anything to get his way. Now he is crying crocodile tears about how badly he is being treated. What a crock! Fortunately, he can't live forever. I hope his heirs are too greedy and too stupid not to savage each other and destroy his media empire. He does have a young mail order bride, which may be a recipe for disaster.

I guess you've never heard of satirical wit. Whatever you think of Jack's piece, you have to admit that Murdoch is a skank.

I would be wary of him if he was merely an ideologue. He is not. He is an unprincipled opportunist selling trailer trash pseudojournalistic crud to whomever will consume it.

He's been a lefty, he's been a righty -- he'll be a Nazi if that's what sells papers and airtime. He reminds me of Ted Nugent. If your audience loses interest -- find another audience.

I will be interesting to see what happens with the WSJ.