Rupert Murdock is a greedy corporate person, the kind that keeps the poor working people of this country in the status quo. We don’t need the same opinions in every newspaper, as it is, most of these papers have become totally anti- Democratic and are becoming more conservative, answering and listening to the concerns of only the rich. I want more than one opinion,therefore I totally disagree with Murdock taking over every newspaper in this country and turning them into tabloid news, like Fox 5, and the NY Post and now the Wall Street journal. I want fair and balanced news, not Bill O’Reilly and Hannity news, period.

The pendulum is about to swing to the LEFT after the overreation of the Conservatives since the 60s. Maybe Rupert will buy ALL of the MEDIA in New York as a counterbalance? Sensible from his perspective and for the SURVIVAL of his empire if it is to have meaning/relevancy — as a basic NEWS enterprise. Leveraging timely media deregulation and laws changing ownership rules have been effective since the Reagan/Bush Presidency - for the Conservative agenda(s). Rupert has already influenced the entire media zeitgeist downward and to the RIGHT. Now, he wants dominance and thanks to the current setup, he will get it. Democracy doesn’t matter. Corporate earnings do. Complete ownership and dominance of all media by Rupert will leave us the Internet, which will continue to rise and diminish the value proposition of “traditional media” outlets Rupert covets for his EMPIRE. Real journalists, if they are not all co-opted by Rupert, will gravitate to the increasingly important lifeblood of our Democracy — the Internet. Free of ideological spin, demogogary and propaganda — the Internet, even still in its infancy — represents a solid counterbalance to the travesty called a “debate” we ALL saw via ABCNews two weeks ago, the standards of which should make every American call for a return of OUR spectrum from Disney.

Addendum: The Internet isn’t free of ideological spin, demogogary and propaganda — but, it does allow for a fluidity and freedom of counterbalancing by OPENNESS to challenge it. Rupert’s empire offers the illusion of “fair and balance” — not the reality. Further, rather than challenge this deceptive assertion, traditional media as a whole has moved to adopt his standards as a way to compete — for ad dollars — morphing journalism into a comedy side show and infotainment. Just like the Carnival side show, it pays and THAT is the only benchmark our journalism (protected by the Constitution) respects since the Reagan/Bush/Clinton dynasties deregulation of our media/spectrum. Turn the page, America.

What struck me about the New York Times article was the last paragraph. Their are jobs at stake here. Hard-working people who aren’t picky about who pays them, they just need a pay-check. Their interests don’t soar to heights being discussed here. If, in fact, the newspaper industry is in peril, placing a megalomaniac at its helm won’t necessarily keep the ship from sinking, but he may be able to keep it afloat until some vehicle of rescue appears on the horizon. The other point I think is relevant to this discussion is the FCC’s outlawing the analogue signal. Which means, starting next year, the dissemination of information will no longer be sponsored, it will come at a cost. Was there a protest and I missed it? Not everyone can afford a computer…or the time it takes to get to the library. When it comes to household budgets, periodicals aren’t a priority. Especially when food and fuel items are ballooning. From where I sit, the poor and the working poor are the most poignant considerations when corporate power shifts and merges. The Constitutional rights of others may be trampled in the process, but their lives aren’t placed in peril. What happens to the underlings?

Rupert left a perfectly good home in Australia to exploit the riches of a more fertile ($$$) country. The irony is that the Murdoch family in Australia (mother Elisabeth Murdoch in particular) were strong supporters and patrons of the arts.