While Tribune Co. is working up its latest round of job cuts at the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, News Corp. is busily building up the The Wall Street Journal.

The contrary approaches that the new owners are taking at some of the nation's best and most respected media outlets raises an interesting question:

Who is the smarter newspaper owner—Sam Zell, the distressed-asset investor who's nickname is "the Grave Dancer," or Rupert Murdoch, the avaricious media mogul known to some as "the Rotten Old Bastard"?

On the surface, there are many similarities. Both are considered business rogues. Both embrace public conflict, conjuring an irrational fear in their opponents. And both provoke extensive teeth-sucking among journalism's high priests.

There are differences between the two men, however. Significant differences. And they make all the difference to the people who work at the newly acquired newspapers—and the people who read them. Here are five realities that make Murdoch the preferable acquirer of journalistic jewels.

1.  Zell bought something of value; Murdoch bought something of unique value.

The Los Angeles Times has been one of the three or four best newspapers in America for at least two decades, and the Chicago Tribune would likely make most Top 12 lists.

Those are great assets, because only the strongest newspapers with compelling brand names will survive the transition to a digital world. Unfortunately, both papers operate in the world of general news, where the competitive set is virtually unlimited, and thus differentiation is extremely difficult.

The Wall Street Journal, on the other hand, operates as the clear leader in a unique segment—business news.

As a business, business news is far superior to general news. The audience is affluent, growing, and quite willing to pay for something they perceive of value. Business people value the Journal's take on a story over the alternative takes, and can either expense the subscription, or easily pay it themselves.

That's why Murdoch is already backing off his initial assumption that he would quickly abandon the WSJ.com's uniquely successful pay model.

2.  Murdoch sees a bigger play; Zell sees stand-alone assets.

Murdoch "overpaid" for Dow Jones because he did not value the Journal for what it is on its own. He valued it as the non-replicable engine of a global business news machine that will cut across all platforms. He's already created a business news television network to eventually attach to it, and look for him to continue assembling and integrating new business news assets around the world.

Consequently, Murdoch views the Journal as an asset that should be strengthened. That's why he's culling the bottom 10 percent of the Journal's newsroom producers, and quietly raiding his competitors for the top 10 percent of their staffs.