Aren't people who prefer to give Rupert Murdoch the benefit of the doubt adorably trusting? At the precise moment his Fox News appears to have finally abandoned even the quarter-arsed pretence of impartiality, allowing Tea Party-backed candidates to fundraise on air in return for exclusive, uncritical access, there are those on these shores opining that Murdoch winning full control of BSkyB really is no biggie.
Well, quite. What's the worst that can happen?
Even as Sarah Palin appears to be fashioning a run at the presidency without appearing on any media outlet other than the one that pays her (she has her own show on Fox), there are those wittering that Murdoch basically already runs Sky, so gaining full control won't alter the UK's media landscape.
Were things across the Atlantic not looking so mind-boggling, you could almost envy that cosy, antiquated assumption that the "media landscape" is something settled, as opposed to in a state of historic flux. Sarah Palin's tweets may have to be ghostwritten – I know, even Darren Bent can fart out his own – yet, as Time magazine observed this week, a single one of them can dominate a news cycle, while one of her speeches can monopolise three news cycles.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/24/rupert-murdoch-bskyb-fox-news