In two succinctly damning sentences on June 5, the Wall Street Journal summed up the record of Rupert Murdoch, the media baron poised to purchase the newspaper, which is one of America's most venerable and trusted press voices.

On its front page, the Journal reported: "A detailed examination of Mr. Murdoch's half-century career as a journalist and businessman shows that his newspapers and other media outlets have made coverage decisions that advanced the interests of his sprawling media conglomerate, News Corp. In the process, Mr. Murdoch has blurred a line that exists at many other U.S. media companies between business and news sides — a line intended to keep the business and political interests of owners from influencing the presentation of news."

Publishing those conclusions took guts, and, in typical fashion, the Journal backed the findings with fact upon fact. It was a superb moment for the broadsheet as the paper neared takeover by a brilliant businessman who ruthlessly uses his holdings, and the power they bestow, to protect and expand his empire.

Murdoch has long coveted the Journal, and proffering $5 billion at a time when newspapers are suffering tough economic shifts won him the prize. The premier daily of global finance and public policy will soon stand in the stable beside the New York Post, an organ more in keeping with Murdoch's style.

The Post, our competitor, is likely the only newspaper in America that would allow a staff member to remain on the payroll after accepting a substantial amount of money from a news source, as happened with Page Six editor Richard Johnson. It would be inconceivable for the Journal to allow a staff member to accept money from an executive who was the subject of a story.

How could Murdoch justify such conduct at one paper and not the other, or swear fealty to high standards at the Journal while letting the Post run stories that advance Murdoch's business agenda without regard to fairness or fact?

Murdoch accepts the Post's lack of credibility and the damage that lapses in integrity inflict on the franchise as part of a larger strategic vision for his $68 billion company. That's a reflection of the corporate culture he has inculcated over the past half-century. And, based on long experience, there's reason to fear that his culture will seep into the Journal as well, eventually bringing the paper in line with the Murdoch way of doing business.

That must not happen. The Journal today speaks authoritatively about money, government, politics and all other subjects because its reporting is meticulous and straight down the middle. There is a legendary wall between news staff and editorial page, which offers among the smartest conservative commentary in the country, based on fact and strongly held belief. The paper doesn't play favorites.

The Journal is an important national institution. The country will be the worse off should Murdoch devalue the paper by undermining its principles in the least.