With media baron Rupert Murdoch now waving his oversized checkbook in front of the owners of Dow Jones -- publisher of the venerable Wall Street Journal -- the New York Times has spent the last couple of days delving into Murdoch's business and political dealmaking.

The result is a fascinating and troubling pair of articles, which you can read here and here.

The opening passages of the first article provide a grim lesson on what can happen when a single person or organization is allowed to aggressively wield the full power and influence of a vast media empire.

"In the fall of 2003, a piece of Rupert Murdoch’s sprawling media empire was in jeopardy.

Congress was on the verge of limiting any company from owning local television stations that reached more than 35 percent of American homes. Mr. Murdoch’s Fox stations reached nearly 39 percent, meaning he would have to sell some.

A strike force of Mr. Murdoch’s lobbyists joined other media companies in working on the issue. The White House backed the industry, and in a late-night meeting just before Thanksgiving, Congressional leaders agreed to raise the limit — to 39 percent.

One leader of the Congressional movement to limit ownership was Senator Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi. But in the end, he, too, agreed to the compromise. It turns out he had a business connection to Mr. Murdoch. Months before, HarperCollins, Mr. Murdoch’s publishing house, had signed a $250,000 book deal to publish Mr. Lott’s memoir, “Herding Cats,” records and interviews show.

An aide to Mr. Lott said the book deal had no bearing on the senator’s decision, and a spokesman for Mr. Murdoch chalked it up to coincidence. Still, the ownership fight showcases the confluence of business, political and media prowess that is central to the way Mr. Murdoch has built his global information conglomerate.

His vast media holdings give him a gamut of tools — not just campaign contributions, but also jobs for former government officials and media exposure that promotes allies while attacking adversaries, sometimes viciously — all of which he has used to further his financial interests and establish his legitimacy in the United States, interviews and government records show."

The second article focuses on Murdoch's various business and political dealings in China. It is no less troubling than the first.

"Mr. Murdoch has flattered Communist Party leaders and done business with their children. His Fox News network helped China’s leading state broadcaster develop a news Web site. He joined hands with the Communist Youth League, a power base in the ruling party, in a risky television venture, his China managers and advisers say."

Both articles should be required reading for anyone who believes the Federal Communications Commission should further relax its already weak rules on media ownership.

The FCC is holding the fifth in a series of six planned public hearings on its media ownership rules in Portland, Maine this Thursday, June 28th. You can get all the details on the hearing by clicking here.

The odds are pretty good the FCC will end up relaxing its current rules on media ownership -- most notably a restriction on a single company owning the leading broadcasters and newspaper in an individual market. That is in spite of the fact that a previous attempt to relax those rules was tossed out by a federal court and that the comments at the public hearings to date have been overwhelmingly against such a relaxation.

Murdoch's high-profile pursuit of the Wall Street Journal has put the issue of media ownership back in the headlines. We hope the decision makers in Washington and elsewhere are listening.