I feel like it's worth pointing out, particularly because I imagine many people dislike Murdoch here, that when the Wall St. Journal was investigating Theranos the company attempted to get him to quash the reporting.
He told them to pound sand and said he had every faith in the Journal's internal processes to not publish anything they couldn't prove.
Really increases the WSJ's credibility in my mind.
The WSJ maintains very solid separation between their news division (almost always solid and rigorous, with decent fact checking, their audience of investors wants good info) and their editorial division (intensely ideological and willing to completely disregard basic facts). So it's important when evaluating a WSJ article to know which part of the publication it came from.
WSJ broke the theranos story, I’m not sure what relevance any of these other ambiguous papers you’re vaguely referring to have to do with the current thread.
He told them to pound sand and said he had every faith in the Journal's internal processes to not publish anything they couldn't prove.
Really increases the WSJ's credibility in my mind.