I wish I could trust the WSJ's coverage, but I have to agree that they do seem to have an odd tendency to go off the rails on certain issues. A recent example t

I wish I could trust the WSJ's coverage, but I have to agree that they do seem to have an odd tendency to go off the rails on certain issues. A recent example that comes to mind is their Gmail API article, which at best badly misrepresented the situation: - https://www.wsj.com/articles/techs-dirty-secret-the-app-developers-sifting-through-your-gmail-1530544442 https://www.wsj.com/articles/techs-dirty-secret-the-app-deve... - https://www.androidpolice.com/2018/09/21/opinion-no-one-get-email-apps-gmail-add-ons-work/ https://www.androidpolice.com/2018/09/21/opinion-no-one-get-... Given that, and the articles you pointed out regarding Murdoch's history (coupled with his unusual willingness to compromise the editorial independence of his media properties), I'm not sure the WSJ is a reliable source in this case. Not that I expect them to blatantly lie, but half-truths and misdirection can go a long way (cf. comments in this discussion that question whether the WSJ is making a mountain out of a molehill here).