The 2011 article you linked emphasizes his activity with tabloid newspapers. I'm unfamiliar with those. From what I've read, he doesn't meddle with his "prestige" newspaper like WSJ. Maybe that's why the WSJ didn't censor itself on negative Theranos stories even though he invested $125 million in it and Elizabeth Holmes asked him to kill the articles.
Rupert Murdoch's influence is a very hot topic in Australia, with 2 former prime ministers from opposite sides teaming up to try to push a royal commission into his media monopoly, and in particular his influence on elections. Some of the commission is directed at the actions of his properties, but a lot of it is directed at his specific meddling as an individual. There have been many claims of directives and squashed stories coming straight from the top, whether that's from him or Lachlan Murdoch.
Rupert Murdoch on the other hand is quite possibly the biggest piece of shit in the entire world outsides of dictators, the tailban , etc.
You should read how he meddled in UK politics and played king maker
https://www.businessinsider.com/gordon-brown-rupert-murdoch-...
I can't wait until he dies
They meddled in USA politics to throw the presidential election.
I assume you’re very mad at Russia too?
Would you like to buy this bridge I have for sale?
NFI why you’re on about election fraud, you’ll have to show me where I made any claims about that.
Had xcrunner simply asked for proof the burden would be on Alvah to provide it, but because xcrunner made a claim he took the burden of proof on himself.
I was never discussing the leaks. I was discussing what Twitter took down (aka what was reported to them).
> I assume you’re very mad at Russia too?
But, but, whatabout the other guys!
No, because I don't have a reason to trust Putin or the Russians, and neither do US citizens. But they do have a reason, and a right, to trust their elected officials.
And no they don’t have a right for something illegal (revenge porn, unconcent) and the company certainly has their own right to censor how they want and choose who they listen to.
The Russian thing was about the actual facts about Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election and if you were crowing about that influence too.
The emails are probably the most politically relevant, and possibly damaging, as they contain possible evidence of corrupt dealing.
Earlier in this thread you made a claim that the leak was only dick pics, have you read a source which claimed that, or is it only that you haven't seen a source talk about anything else?
There're these, many of which are verified: https://bidenlaptopemails.com/
I don't know the entire contents but it is certainly more than just dick pics. I've heard someone discuss using the dates in those to corroborate other stories which means they aren't just salacious either.
Because Jack Dorsey said to congress that they blocked the NYPost story because of reports by the dems and the FBI. The NYPost's story didn't have porn thus they reported at least some non-porn links.
We've known the broad strokes of this for quite a while and it's just the emails and chat logs of the conspirators that we're seeing for the first time now.
I cannot think of a more fundamental violation of the US first amendment.
https://bidenlaptopemails.com/
We also know that the emails, or at least many of them, are valid. The signatures, made years before the leaks, check out.
https://blog.erratasec.com/2020/10/yes-we-can-validate-leake...
It contains possibly legal things that the voters might find to be a turn-off, such as the ne'er-do-well son selling access to his dad in his official position.
Considering Hunter appears to be speaking to leaders and oligarchs it feels that Joe needs to control him, and imho could easily do it through the courts by making Hunter's allowance conditional on not claiming a business relationship with his dad.
> It’s laughable you think any American cares after all the selling access the Trump admin did and the kids getting access without clearances.
Biden thought they would, or they wouldn't have tried to squash the story.
> Fuck off.
What's that, you say I'm right in every way?
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
This isn't a partisan viewpoint. I'm not in the USA or attached to either party.
The Murdoch dynasty (Keith, Rupert, Lachlan, ...) are master newspapermen. Why burn goodwill killing a story about money that is already lost when that goodwill could be spent on influencing even bigger things?
To be clear - I’m not trying to suggest one is better than the other. Just that they are a very interesting comparison.
"Special report: Rupert Murdoch, a hands-on newspaperman"
"To illustrate the extent to which Rupert Murdoch used to micro-manage his newspapers,..."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-newscorp-murdoch-papers-i...
The article is past tense, but there's no reason for it to have changed.
The difference between Musk and Murdoch is that Murdoch lets other people do the talking, even if they are his words.