In response to the article “The Evil of Rupert Murdoch” by Roger Simon of the Politico, I submitted the following comment:

This is one of the most grossly mistitled articles I’ve ever read in my life. And by a top editor at the Politico?

With a title like that, I was prepping to read about all of the dastardly deeds committed by Mr. Murdoch as related by a supposed insider.

But what did I find out? That Murdoch allegedly wanted to emphasize sex, violence, crime, and racial discord in his paper.

OK, and assuming that’s the case, so he desired to emphasize everything that Hollywood loves to emphasize in their everyday fare — and what liberals love to emphasize, i.e. racial discord.

You may consider that to be evil Mr. Simon, but you never made the case that it is.

You also may consider it evil that Mr. Murdoch allegedly used the outdated term “coloreds”, which for all you know may have been still in common use in Australia.

You may consider that evil Mr. Simon, but again, your article never made the case it is.

Finally you insinuate that you think Mr. Murdoch was aware of the shenanigans that the people at the News of the World pulled off in Great Britain. But you never provide any insider information that he did know.

That’s what the court system aims to discover. Innocent until proven guilty.

Even if he did know, most people don’t consider white-collar crimes evil — usually evil is associated with things like murder.

Of course, you can feel free to consider phone tapping evil, Mr. Simon, but you never made the case that it is, and you certainly never made the case that Mr. Murdoch was personally involved in it.

Accusing someone of being evil, without providing an iota of evidence that he is, may not be evil, but it is repugnant.