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.

Calm down man, I realise that he hadn't outright condemned this in public, but let's face it, the likelihood that he had nothing to do with it is slim. And if you aren't used to audience-catching video titles by now, then where have you been?

Nevertheless, thank you for pointing out the facts so others don't get misled

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, September 7th, 2013 5:27am PDT - promote requested by JiggaJonson.

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

Apparently none of us want to claim him!

Rupert Murdoch: Barnacle.

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?

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.

Oh, spare me! That's a serious case of hyperbole you got there

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....

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...

I just think that what I am being accused of is a wild exaggeration, haha. You're going way over the top to make a point about a fucking video title. I'm sorry, I just can't take that seriously.

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.

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.

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?

You all know there is a downvote button, right?