Forget who controls the media in Australia, let's look at the real battle for control here, the one that has unfolded over the past few days between Labor and the Greens over the media inquiry.
First things first. Those who want this inquiry have the Greens to thank.
What's been announced this afternoon would not have happened without the Greens pushing for it assiduously in the wake of the phone hacking scandal in Britain. So let's close our eyes and block our ears should we see any spin to the contrary.
But with that due acknowledgement, there is also another truth that must be noted.
Labor was not having a "Greens" inquiry, not on this issue, with all the potential sensitivities.
It would be a government-initiated inquiry on its own terms, outside the parliament.
Or it would be nothing.
So ultimately, that's what we've got.
And what we've got is — potentially — a substantial exercise, albeit a quieter process than a parliamentary probe, which would have been all singing all dancing, with invective and drama at 50 paces.
There are huge questions embedded in these rather bland sounding terms of reference.
This inquiry has a seriously ambitious remit: look at newspapers and work out what if anything can be done to keep them afloat in an era where the business model for commercial news is being smashed.
This process also raises the spectre of new government or quasi-government regulation of newspapers rather than the current practice of industry self-regulation: potentially one regulator covering news making in all its forms.
Publishers and journalists, given the press freedom imperative, will be watching how that element of the debate proceeds with more than passing interest.
Communications Minister Stephen Conroy could not have been clearer today. This is about accountability. Journalists expect public figures to be accountable and the industry must be accountable for its practice too.
Whatever this is, it's not an empty inquiry, even if it appeared for a time that it might be.
Conroy has steadfastly refused to put media ownership on the table for this inquiry on the basis that nothing practical can be done to unscramble the current dominance of News Limited, which owns 70 per cent of newspapers (and naturally News Limited would have interpreted 'ownership' in the terms of reference as a direct and personal attack).
Forced divestiture is not an option - it's a licence for killing newspapers, many of which are no longer viable as stand-alone businesses.
Conroy's belief is Australia can only look forward and work out how to enhance and preserve media diversity in the future.
And enhancing diversity in quality journalism is the critical factor here.
The fact that a single proprietor owns 70 per cent of newspapers is a significant failure of Australian public policy.
This is not some hectoring anti-News Limited declaration by me.
It wouldn't matter if the owner in question was God himself.
It is in the public interest to have many voices, a variety of sources of information and opinion.
It is also in the public interest to look for ways of preserving quality public interest journalism in challenging times.
Journalism has never been so contestable, never been so difficult to sustain when society is looking for new hierarchies to deliver facts, opinion and debate.
Matthew Ricketson, a former Age journalist, now an academic, and former federal court Justice Ray Finkelstein (who will conduct this review) have a significant task on their hands.
Katharine Murphy is The Age's national affairs correspondent.