They might drum me out of the journalism cabal for saying this, but Rupert Murdoch's $5 billion purchase of Dow Jones & Co. might be the best thing for American journalism since Watergate.

Many of the industry's lions have been wringing their hands publicly for decades about declining circulation and viewers while privately counting the piles of gold from ever-increasing profits.

Murdoch has been one of the few investing those profits in the future, buying or building media properties that please viewers and readers.

His move to take over the Wall Street Journal fits his grand plan that gazes into the future and fits the strategy known as "vertical integration." That's an MBA phrase for a plan that delivers great reporting through print newspapers, cable networks and digital domains, such as the Internet.

Murdoch is reviled in some journalism circles because he is an owner who likes to get involved in the direction of the companies he buys. (Excuse me. Isn't that the prerogative of an owner?) He is scorned by pundits because his Fox News Channel and New York Post editorial page tilt right. So what? CNN leans left. So does The New York Times. Any savvy media consumer would tell you that you cannot rely on a single source for information.

Most news media outlets take pains to remove bias from reporting, but the slant is evident whenever editors decide which stories to cover and which to ignore. The only way to ensure you are receiving well-rounded reporting is to receive it from multiple sources.

The trouble with some consumers — and many in the media — is that they want to see the news through their own prism or their own medium.

Say what you will about Fox, the competition has been good for cable television news programs. It's the same thing with his newspapers. Competition breeds improvement.

Murdoch's view is that the delivery method is as critical to his success as the content. "Media maximization," as a blogger called it this week, does not endear him to many journalists whose opinions you keep reading and hearing.

But business leaders understand that Murdoch's strategy reaches into the future behavior of consumers and puts his products ahead of his peers'.

In many ways, it is the best thing for American democracy because vertical integration allows consumers to receive more information than the current forms of media. The future is in information on demand.

Murdoch intends to build a team of the best business journalists around the world and deliver their articles through print (the Wall Street Journal), through the Internet (on a variety of sites he owns and new ones he is developing) and on television (through a network that is in production.)

It is as simple as saying to the consumer, "I have great content," and then asking, "How would you like it served?"

Murdoch, 76, is chairman of News Corp., which owns film companies, cable networks, broadcast TV, Internet businesses (such as MySpace), magazines and newspapers around the world. Not all of his projects are wildly successful, but he does better than most, and certainly better than the Wall Street Journal, whose advertising ship is taking on water. His investment might be saving, rather than destroying, one of the best newspapers in the world.

The fear seems to be that Murdoch will stick his nose into the reporting and editorial direction of the Journal, but that seems unlikely. The Journal's traditions are hardbound. And if Murdoch gets a little too pushy, no one knows how to leak a story about Murdoch's influence better than a journalist who lives on leaks. In other words, he would not get away with it, even if he wanted to.

Murdoch appears so sensitive to the perception that he even appointed a committee of respected journalists to act as a buffer between owner and staff.

He is a businessman, and that drives some journalists crazy. But the First Amendment never guaranteed anything but a free press. It said nothing about a profitable one.

— Tim Gallagher is publisher of The Star. He can be reached at tgallagher@venturacountystar.com.