I did indeed watch the whole video, and I saw what I suspect they did. Oddly, I work in the same industry as Quinton Flynn, albeit nowhere earning the megabucks he does, and one of the greatest pitfalls people make is reading from a script as if it was a script, and not a natural conversation. There is a different cadence, and flow of words, if you are reading from a prewritten transcript, your speech is much more distinct and clarified than if you are having a normal conversation. Now that is what you use when narrating, not what you use when trying to make something sound like an exclamation mark exists at the end of every statement you make.
There wasn’t actually any evidence provided at all. They could have gotten some woman off the street to record that dialogue and given her $AU 50 to read a rewritten script (Which is what it actually sounded like). There wasn’t any factual evidence at all. What there was, was a deliberate slant on the clip right from the start, and then very specifically chosen phrases to make it sound like the people saying those lines were unaware that their words were being recorded.
Sorry, but that doesn’t wash. Who works in an industry, especially one dealing in legality, where they are unaware that their telephone conversations at work are recorded? I mean in most nations that is a -legal- requirement.
Exactly. Except that wasn’t Unaltered was it? I mean there wasn’t any proof, apart from the rather splendidly biased ranty reporter -saying- it was insider information.
Sure, and if there -had- been any Video Evidence, which there was not, then absolutely we should call that out.
Hmmmm No. That isn’t what I did. I despise the far left as much as I despise the far right, my politics are much too complex to be pigeonholed in such easily digestible terms. As probably are the politics of every human being on the planet who looks at things analytically instead of being fed their opinion.
No, but we are talking about a man who has a legally proven track record for falsifying information, videos, interviews and written media. I mean that video is literally “Here is a video made by a company controlled by a man who has a legally proven record for lying when it comes to videos and media, but this, this one, sure, you can trust him this time!” Come on, for real?
I look forwards to seeing such. That isn’t what was linked.
It is actually a bit more sinister than that, But yeah, I’d say someone who endorses corrupting a police investigation and removing evidence, wasting police time and causing heartbreak to parents, as well as risking lives, is not someone I would trust to own a company supposed to give a neutral point of view…
Well, if there was proof, then show it! That video was not proof. Using the term ‘Cancel’ devalues an argument, it means that someone cannot actually back up the fact that maybe, just maybe, they are wrong, and people are tired of listening to their nonsense.
As I say, you have no idea of my politics, they would probably surprise you. You seem to have this idea that I will listen to Left Wing media and discount Right Wing media? Really? You get nutters on both sides who will only listen to the news that fits their agenda (That video is actually a good example of this, the entire reporting is slipshod and slanted from the very start).
That video a) Has no relevance to the Thread topic, and b) is sponsored by a man who has been proven in a court of Law to have acted criminally, deceitfully, and against the public interests. Hence he sold his shares and no longer controls it. Who did he sell his shares to?
Oh yeah. His Son. They have regular weekly meetings where Murdoch Senior ‘advises’ his Son what to put out there.
Come on…
