Not sure I'd want to keep doing business as a reader if the company becomes a Murdoch arm either.
I don't think one can worry too much about which multigajillionaire owns a piece of any given thing, since you'd pretty much have to live on a desert island to avoid using something that was connected to them in some way. For instance, the Star Wars
films are distributed by 20th Century Fox, which is a subsidiary of Murdoch's NewsCorp. Would you boycott Star Wars
for the rest of your life because of that? Or Planet of the Apes
or Die Hard
or the Alien
franchise? What about The Shield
or Burn Notice
or White Collar
? Do you boycott Hulu and Photobucket because NewsCorp owns them? What about its 5% share in MySpace?
The thing to remember is that there are countless layers of hierarchy between the things you actually watch or read or use and the moguls who ultimately profit from them. For instance, there was all that furor recently over the homophobic statements of the guy who owned the Chick-Fil-A corporation, but that wasn't the fault of the people who owned the individual restaurant franchises or the people they employed (many of whom are gay themselves). Boycotting their restaurants probably hurt those people lower on the totem pole a lot more than it hurt the owner. At that level, these moguls don't have much contact with the actual businesses they own. They just see the money that comes in from them, and it's all kind of interchangeable to them.