Paul Krugman in today's New York Times: "If Rupert Murdoch does acquire The Wall Street Journal, it will be a dark day for America’s news media — and American democracy."
Really? Isn't that giving just a TAD too much credit to a newspaper and not enough to a 230-year old democracy that has withstood all trials and tribulations thus far thrust upon it? Come now; I realize the man has money, influence, business acumen, ruthless flare, media reach, and most damning of all, a conservative outlook on politics, but the reality is that it's just a newspaper that covers American business. And if it turns into something as one-sided and unfair and unbalanced as Fox News (not that there's anything wrong with that), it will lose its influence entirely, so not to worry. The Journal has fought hard to win and hold its well-deserved reputation, but the moment it stops representing itself and all it stands for, it will lose its power. Plain and simple. And I prefer the Financial Times anyway, with family and co-worker continually asking me about "that pink newspaper" [always quickly corrected by me as salmon, not pink], its shorter stories and fewer pages, and the exposure it gives me to things in places other than the U.S., places like Denmark, Dubai, and India. Great stuff, and it makes you SO much more interesting in conversation!
Now, isn't there a real crisis to be dealt with out there somewhere today, like how the very God-given free will of man will rue the day the iPhone was launched, or something to that effect?