The Times of London first reported on the Downing Street Minutes

[Catherine Vincent]

Mike Malloy reported tonight that The Times of London is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Should we be worried?

[babylonsister]

1. No, I think the paste is already out of the tube. Too

much attention is focused on this, and I don't recall BorB denying the authenticity of these minutes.

[shraby]

2. Neither Bush nor Blair denied

it's existence when questioned about it by the reporter, and the rest of the memos have been authenticated by NBC, Rawstory, and BBC that I know of.

[evermind]

3. When Murdoch bought the times, he entered into an

agreement to guarantee the autonomy of the editor.

But it's suspected that this has not been always strictly adhered to:

... according to Belfield, Hird and Kelly's book, 'Murdoch, The Decline of an Empire'...

'he was required, however, to guarantee editorial freedom and the security of the editor. Murdoch agreed but privately said the promises were not worth the paper they were written on.'

This was proved soon afterwards as they go on to say that:

'he constantly interfered in the editorial process, and after a year Harry Evans, the editor of The Times, was forced to resign'.

http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=359

However, with big leaks like the DSM and other British papers, I'd guess it's really up to the leaker who is going to print them. I don't think any major paper would turn them down (assuming they can be verified) because with a determined leaker, they are going into print anyway, so why not be the one to get the kudos and sales?

So just the fact of the Times being owned by Murdoch doesn't increase the suspicion level, in my books.

In fact, if I were a government agent wanting to plant false information in the UK press, I would target left-wing papers like the Guardian or the Independent, because coming from there it's more likely to be believed.

It's naive to think that there are not journalists willing to plant stories in either of those papers, I suspect.