It scarcely seems possible to think that Rupert Murdoch is walking away from the film and TV factories he spent a lifetime building. Yet on Wednesday the media mogul confirmed the rumours: he was out of the entertainment business – selling his Fox assets to Walt Disney, a bigger firm, in a $66bn deal. If the deal passes the regulatory hurdles, the Murdochs will be left with a 5% stake in the newly enlarged Disney company. This is a case of Mickey Mouse roaring and the Fox running. Battles are not won by retreating. Mr Murdoch has tasted defeat. He has turned away from popular culture, realising perhaps that he could not dominate the landscape as he would have liked.

Mr Murdoch did try: his studios produced the popular Simpsons cartoon and the X-Men movie franchise; he created Europe’s largest satellite TV provider; and his company ran one of India’s most-watched channels. But in a changing world he appeared like a man out of time. In entertainment the internet is undermining the dominance of mass media and handing power to new content providers such as Amazon and Netflix as well as tech giants like Apple, which plans an entertainment division. Viewers increasingly prefer to pay subscriptions to these providers for streamed content rather than for cable or satellite services. These web-based video-on-demand channels provided the must-see shows of recent years, such as House of Cards.

Even when Mr Murdoch had insight, he was unable to act quickly enough on it. He recognised that size matters in Hollywood. But three years ago he was outmanoeuvred by the huge cable company AT&T, which bagged the prize of Time Warner that Mr Murdoch craved. It is reported that he is still trying to get the deal blocked. Mr Murdoch will now have more time to focus on his newspapers as well as his US news and sports channels. This is not necessarily a good thing. The media mogul spent decades coarsening the culture of news with his mix of snarling politics, moral outrage and sexual titillation. In shaking up tabloid newspapers in Britain and news broadcasting in America, he may claim to have toppled an establishment. But his brand of vituperative journalism also contributed to the rise of Brexit and Donald Trump – whom Mr Murdoch continues to support – even if his tabloid invective has been overtaken by online hard-right propagandists. (Again the world of new technology has moved past the Murdochs).

In Britain, Mr Murdoch’s deal will end a seven-year chase for his company to fully own both a television channel and a stable of newspapers. This pursuit for power and money has been interrupted by phone hacking and corruption scandals. The current bid by Mr Murdoch’s Fox to buy the 61% share of Sky which it does not already own lies with the UK competition regulator, which is looking into the effect on media plurality and weighing the Murdochs’ commitment to broadcasting standards. These were called into question by the ongoing sexual harassment and governance scandals at Fox News and public outrage over that network’s coverage of the death of a Democratic aide which gave broader circulation to conspiracy theories. Now come allegations of bribes for TV soccer highlights.

Although Disney would end up as owner under the proposed deal, the culture secretary, Karen Bradley, should publish the report into the Murdochs’ media power and an assessment on whether the family should be considered ethical media owners. In the current environment, lies, rumour and gossip spread with alarming speed. The media, institutionally, allows for a level of consensus over what is true. Mr Murdoch has a propensity for trust-only-your-prejudice journalism. He should be pulled up for it.