3 ms·
> they effectively decide who wins the next election in countries like Australia and the UK Big claims require big evidence, and here you haven't given any.
by cturner 6y ago
> they effectively decide who wins the next election in countries like Australia and the UK
Big claims require big evidence, and here you haven't given any.
- hogFeast 6y agoRead about political history in those countries. The Cameron govt's press department was run by people from News Corp. Blair's meeting with Murdoch pre-97 was infamous. Cameron's meetings pre-2010 are infamous. Brown had numerous personal, and secret, meetings with Murdoch (and failed to convince Murdoch of his merits). I don't go in for the conspiracy theories around Murdoch at all btw. But it is fairly clear that he has a substantial amount of contact with/control over politicians...it is just factually true (something that isn't obvious to people outside the UK, journalists are heavily involved in politics in the UK...going from journalism into politics and then back again or into PR/lobbying is done frequently).
- cturner 6y agoNone of your points are evidence of the earlier claim. Your post follows the pattern of the earlier one that I replied to: you echo the mantra that Murdoch has control over politicians, and you again leap from claim into statement of truth without evidence, "it is just factually true". Occasional meetings with politicians is not evidence of control, nor the higher claim given earlier in the thread, of deciding the outcome of elections.