None 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

None 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.