By Mark Finkelstein | December 11, 2008 | 4:43 PM EST
How about Sean Hannity as editor of the New York Times op-ed page?  Maybe O'Reilly and Cavuto in place of Dowd and Krugman as Times columnists?  It might not be as far-fetched as it sounds.  At least, not if Michael Wolff is right.  The Vanity Fair media maven, appearing on CNBC this afternoon, not only said that Rupert Murdoch wants the Gray Lady, but predicted he would get her.  [H/t Gat.]

View video here [via CNBC].
MICHAEL WOLFF: I think that everybody is looking at [the NYT] and waiting for it to kind of go over a brink, to run out of cash, which they're in the process of doing. Or to find itself in a situation where actually, and this is really the key thing, they go looking for a buyer.
A bit later, Wolff, author of a book on Murdoch, mentioned his name as a likely buyer . . .
By Jacob S. Lybbert | September 3, 2008 | 5:20 PM EDT

As Fox News prepares to interview Barack Obama tomorrow night, during prime time, TV journalist Michael Wolff details a meeting between Barack Obama, Fox News president Roger Ailes, and News Corporation president Rupert Murdoch in which the Fox execs promised to lay off the Democratic presidential candidate.

According to Wolff's telling, this was more than a mere tete-à-tete, this was a full-on diplomatic meeting (initiated at Murdoch's request), conducted only after preparation and with preconditions from the Obama campaign.

The apparent purpose? To smooth things over in the event that Obama defeats John McCain:

By Mithridate Ombud | July 24, 2007 | 11:12 PM EDT

<p>Journalists <a href="http://www.observer.com/2007/dow-jones-defends-steiger-conflicting-worri... and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trevor-butterworth/the-wall-street-journ_b... are still crying about Rupert Murdoch possibly owning the Wall Street Journal. <a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/09/wolff200709?printabl... Fair's</a> Michael Wolff said a Murdoch-owned WSJ would suffer &quot;the loss of a few points of I.Q., a quickened pace, a higher sense of drama, less accurate, perhaps, but less tedious too, and, likely, a keener instinct for following the money.&quot; So for all of you psych majors who thought IQ scores were static; you've apparently never met a journalist who was told to be fair. By the way, isn't the most precious tenet of journalism &quot;<a href="http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3732">following the money</a>&quot;? </p><p>LA Times' Tim Rutten shocks us with the real reason the NY Times and Baltimore Sun reject forced embargoes and try to wreck your Harry Potter night with pre-dawn spoilers; <a href="http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-rutten21jul21,1,1224687.colum... about money.&quot;</a> Harry Potter spoilers, classified information spoilers, apparently Pinch Sulzberger has a different take on &quot;follow the money.&quot; </p>