I'm sorry, but how do you suppose the newspapers get their information? Going up to someone and saying please doesn't always work. It's not like we don't know that there's a slightly hokey relationship between the police and the papers either. How is it that the papers are already there whenever someone famous is arrested or their buildings searched? The police make their case, in part, off the back of people being found guilty in the court of public opinion.
The other argument I've heard centres on whether News Corp's actions make them a "fit and proper" person to run BSkyB. I rather suspect that to me, that isn't the issue. If a politician is up to now good, or a singer's flown to Thailand to fiddle with kids, I want them going through his garbage and hacking his e-mail, so part of me encourages the papers to do that stuff.
I am against the merger, however. I'm against it on competition grounds. I've seen how Rupert Murdoch manages Fox News in the US, and I don't want that to happen in the UK. To make matters worse, Fox has competition in the US from CNN and MSNBC. They are almost bound to be worse, without the competition to hold them in place.
People seem to have forgotten that we set up 2 satellite broadcasters for a reason when we first got them in the UK. We might have lost one, but we can still hold the overweening power of the other in place by not allowing it to be entirely owned by one corporation. That way at least, it won't be answerable to one master.