Got it, the Murdochs don't call the shots in the News Corp, and when those closest to the story have doubts regarding validity, it means nothing
And I don't look up your sources, learned a long time ago you shrink them knowing people aren't take that extra step to view them, kinda like banning
The evidence is circumstantial. And of course, this isn't a court of law. When a 'news story' is rejected by every reputable news source, and some that aren't even that reputable, it strongly suggests that the story is unsubstantiated. Combine that with the fact that we know Guiliani was being used by the Russians, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what happened here.
Since you've produced no evidence that they do, that seems like a reasonable assumption, unless you have information to the contrary.
Given that Rupert is retired and James resigned, it seems unlikely that you do.
It means that some reporters at one newspaper disagreed with some reporters at another newspaper, doesn't it?
You don't appear to look up any sources as a rule, Anchovies.
That explains why you you stay so uninformed, I suppose.
So now the individual listed as the "Executive Chairman" on the company's website is retired, and it is not James Murdoch, but Lachlan Murdoch who is second in control, and according to you, neither calls the shots in the operations, got it
The actual reporters involved in the story are hardly just some reporters, and they aren't in another newspapers, both reporters close to the narrative at the NYP and WSJ have their doubts
And unlike anything you offered here, I've been pretty on top of it providing sources along the way, so you are wrong again there
Sure it is, the narrative is questionable start to finish, the fish stinks from the head down, pretty clear
And the only entity actually investigation is the FBI, and they are investigating to see if it is connected to Russia's misinformation campaign not if Joe Biden is corrupt
It's a fact that Rupert is retired, and it's a fact that James resigned. You seemed unaware of those developments.
I didn't claim that Lachlan Murdoch doesn't "call the shots in the operation", Anchovies. I questioned whether any of the Murdochs control the content that News Corp. publishes.
If you have evidence to the contrary, where is it?
The WSJ and the NYP are separate newspapers, Anchovies.
And some do not. So what?
So you say.
Never ends
Now why would a corporation put the name of a retired person as the acting Executive Chairman of their corporation on their website? And I never once bought up the name James, you did, I said Rupert's son was second in command, and of course the number one and two heads of the media empire have no dominating say over the content their vehicles produce
Again, never said they were anything other than separate papers
The "so what" is that those closest to the story themselves have questions regarding its authenticity, says a regarding validity
Bookmarks