Today he turns up in assorted papers in his guise as prime ministerial puppeteer. And it seems the power of this 84-year-old Aussie-turned-American is even more extensive than we feared - stretching even to the Daily Mail, which he doesn't own.
Some of us may have thought that the election battle was between David Cameron and Ed Miliband. Twitter and the blogosphere, however, have come to the view that it's Murdoch v Miliband.
The Tory Press has had a dreadful election campaign. But it's a mite unfair to lay all the blame on dear old Rupe. The Sun has been awful and the Times absurd, but the worst excesses have come from the Mail, followed by the Telegraph, which has today emailed its leader to everyone on its reader database urging them to vote Conservative.
That's the trouble with being a pantomime villain: you get the blame for everything - even sins you haven't committed.
This was bound to arouse interest beyond Twitter: the Guardian and the Huffington Post wrote about her, the hashtag was a question on Have I Got News for You.
Twitter's outrage knew no bounds. Murdoch and all who worked for him were scum, disgusting, rabid rightwingers, zombies.
What's more, a Sun reporter "lied" when he tweeted that he had found her from the electoral roll. She was 17 and not registered. The reporters "stalking" her had probably used some illegal or underhand methods to get her address. Any resultant article would surely have been negative.
The key factor is the way that one girl's engaging and vibrant Twitter personality has managed to reinvent Ed Miliband's public image and show that young people can and do care about politics.
It's not surprising that the country's most popular paper should be interested. Every paper should have been. All that reporters needed was to establish her identity.
The Sun is well known for paying for information - there have been a few high-profile trials that hinged on that habit; it has also been rumbled offering £100 for "good news" stories about the Tories. Did it not occur to anyone that someone who knew Abby, however slightly - someone who goes to the same school, perhaps - might have contacted the paper and offered the information in return for a few quid?
Armed with her surname, it is perfectly feasible that the reporter found the addresses from the electoral roll, even though she is not on it herself.
And if that is what happened, how could the Sun - which ran no story, positive or negative - defend itself? By revealing how it came by the information and betraying its source? Come on.
As journalists, we criticise those who do all their reporting on the phone. Is one knock on the door and a polite conversation out of order? Is it really so terrible to go to the grandmother - assuming the reporters took "No" for an answer and then went away?
After all, Abby herself is proudly tweeting about her evenings/weekends spent door-knocking, presumably "disturbing" some voters in their seventies. Is a request for a newspaper interview more intrusive than asking someone how they intend to vote?
Is that really what he did? Personally?
I doubt it. But that's the trouble with being the baddie. People are ready to blame you for everything.
And so it is with that advert at the top of this post, with Murdoch's figure in front of a couple of Daily Mail front pages over which he has no control.
What is surprising is that anyone still believes that newspapers have that much influence. The Daily Express gave its readers a direct order yesterday: "You must vote Ukip". Crikey. Even the most partisan papers usually stick to "should" rather than "must". Do people look at the Mail and think "I'd better vote Conservative or the world will end"?
It's easy to laugh at the Sun and its old bacon buttie photograph, but some of the Times's splashes have also been dodgy. Take the £1,000 bill for every working family that was almost entirely retracted in a small page 2 correction. Then there's today's headline that the Queen will "take control" of the aftermath on top of a story that says no such thing because, of course, she can and will do no such thing.
It's a shame, because the front-end nonsense is bringing bad publicity that overshadows the good journalism on all sorts of subjects to be found inside both papers.
The Times isn't a rabid rightwing organ that closes its pages to a contrary view. Today's paper has three columnists putting forward the case for Cameron, Labour and the LibDems; its chief leader writer used to write speeches for Tony Blair; there's a huge "Vote Labour" sign outside the house of one of its star writers; Caitlin Moran has tweeted her support for #milifandom Abby.
The pity here is that those who shout loudest about the paper tend not to open it. Proudly declaring that they wouldn't have that rag in the house, they prefer to judge it by the front page or on columnists' outrageous comments that have been brought to their attention by someone else.
So those front pages will have done the Murdoch camp no favours. They are unlikely to have convinced anyone to vote Conservative, but they fired up young Abby. And if Miliband takes up residence in No 10 the apt headline could turn out to be "It was the Sun wot lost it".