Proof seems to be lacking in your empty non-argument.
Read something not printed by Murdoch.

Wealthiest Pay Higher Taxes With Scant U.S. Economic Harm
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-11/wealthiest-pay-higher-taxes-with-scant-u-s-economic-harm.html

"tax increases harm growth is simply false."
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=4094

Er, what the fuck is he talking about?

The media, (i.e. Murdoch) in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, are desperate to manufacture a debate where there is none. (Hmm, where have we seen this tactic before? Oh yeah, creationism.)

The only reasons we hear anything at all about climate change are a) so they can manufacture outrage and b) because it fucking exists and the evidence is getting harder and harder to ignore.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Keith Olbermann: Rupert Murdoch Co. Publishing Palin Book. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Using a scumbag's tactics against them isn't hypocritical if you're satirically doing this to draw attention to the technique (did you know Glen Beck refuses to deny that he raped and murdered a woman in 1990?) but I don't think that's what's happening here. This is just misleading, I assumed he banned it from any TV channels he owns but nope.


In particular, this grates:
And if you aren't used to audience-catching video titles by now, then where have you been?
Because even though I'm used to this sort of thing, I still think it's wrong.

If you consider audience-deceiving tactics to be acceptable, why does Murdoch bother you so much?

In the end, it didn't matter. Australians did choose their own government, and they chose the one Murdoch wanted, even bringing back insane, racist idiots.

Uh huh, so a headline of a paper should be laser accurate and never indulge in subjective or editorial bias, but videos can be titled with whatever the poster decides regardless of the "facts"?

You're missing the point by a country mile. You want to hold Murdoch to account, good on ya. The guy is a fucking waste of skin imo. But if you are going to do it, it's hypocritical to use exactly the same tactics he uses.

It's not rocket science, the video can stand on it's own without the need for a sensationalist hyperbolic headline/title.

So in your mind, anyone can say anything about someone, offer no actual proof or veracity and should be allowed to get away with it as long as the person they're talking about is pretty poorly thought of? X D

You're using the same hyperbole (oh sweet irony) that reportage of this issue used, but even Get Up refuse to directly accuse him... (cos, ya know, libel...)

http://nofibs.com.au/2013/09/04/getup-update-murdoch-ad-ban/

"Already, 830,000 people have seen the ad on air or online — but now all three major TV networks are pulling it off air and refusing to run it.1. Some of the network representatives told us directly: they’re not running the ad because they don’t want to criticise Rupert Murdoch."

Not wanting to criticise him is not the same thing as HIM banning the ad...

Murdochs' in what I like to call the "Room 101" classification of world-destroyers as in, room 101 is the first portion of his incarceration, THEN comes the water-boarding and the shit-all-up-under-the-fingernails treatment....

Thought that was pretty funny too. The guy was born in Melbourne but why pass up the opportunity to hurl such a great insult!

Rupert Murdoch is absolute garbage... but so is this video... and spewing total BS isn't how we're going to beat people like this.

Umm, the title is...

"BRILLIANT Aussie Ad That Rupert Murdoch Had Banned"

That's not the same as condemning it, and it's not the same as working behind the scenes to get media providers not to show it.

I get it, I dislike Murdoch as much as the next guy, but the title isn't even presumptuous, it's totally unproven and without any supporting evidence, is an outright lie. You want to take the moral high ground over Murdoch by engaging in the same shenanigans he perpetrates?

Rupert Murdoch: Barnacle.

I think it's funny how the Australians claim that Murdoch is now an American.

Apparently none of us want to claim him!

Your video, BRILLIANT Aussie Ad That Rupert Murdoch Had Banned, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 43 Badge!

The only lie I see here is in the title of the video.

Murdoch didn't have the ad banned, a variety of commercial television channels and newspaper chose not to run the ad for a variety of reasons. I don't necessarily agree with their decisions, but there is no evidence that Murdoch twisted any arms or had any involvement in those decisions.

Don't make him into some all-powerful agent when there is an entire system at work, it only serves to take the spotlight away from where it belongs.

What if Rupert Murdoch sanctioned this?

Actually, fuck that. Here's a better question: what if Ron Paul actually was a credible alternative, instead of a racist, homophobic old whack job who doesn't accept evolution, climate change or a womans right to choose?