 Under the ownership of Rupert Murdoch, the Sun became Britain's best-selling newspaper. In the 1990s, its circulation peaked at 5 million per day. It's toxified this country's discourse about migrants and benefit claimants, and its support has always been seen, and more for the last 40 years at least, as necessary for any party leader to become Prime Minister. However, Rupert Murdoch now thinks the brand is worthless. The FT report that Murdoch has written down the value of the paper to zero the company's most recent accounts, so that during the pandemic, news group newspaper, which operates the Sun and the Sun on Sunday, nursed pre-tax losses of 210 million pounds. Aaron, I want your thoughts on this. The Sun has shaped British politics for the worst for over 50 years. It was bought by Murdoch in 1969. I really didn't realise it was that long ago. How much does it matter that he now judges the paper to be worthless? It's not worthless. It was never about making money. It was all about influencing political outcomes. The Sun hasn't been making money for a very long time, not serious money anyway, not enough money that you would invest in its long-term future, build new infrastructure, have really forward-looking recruitment programmes and so on. Where its value lies, Michael, now for Rupert Murdoch, look, he's an old man. He's in his 80s. It's about ensuring political control over the right people for long enough. He might be around another 10, 15 years. That's also what the Sun is about. It doesn't need to make money. It's been losing money for a pretty long time. I don't think there's a future for the Sun as a commercially viable project, but I don't think that's why Murdoch bought it in the first place. He bought the News of the World in 1968, bought the Sun a year later. I mean, the story of the Sun and Rupert Murdoch is a remarkable one, Michael. When he bought it, he promised the trade unions behind its publication that it would remain a labour-voting newspaper. You said it was in 69. I think they endorsed labour in 70, 74. They went Tory. In 79, there was a 1600-word leader article in the Sun. There's like an LRB article, right? 1600 words saying why people should vote Margaret Thatcher. 1600 words. A year later, the first day of Rupert Murdoch, a year later, Larry Lamb, guess what? He was given a knighthood by Margaret Thatcher. You don't understand the political revolution we had in this country with the Tories, with Thatcherism, then with Blairism fundamentally, not any big changes to the economic model of the country. You don't understand that without also looking at the history of the Sun newspaper. Yes, it's brilliant that it's not making money. It would be terrible if it was profitable as well as politically influential, but that's not the fundamental reason why Murdoch has it. He has a bunch of other projects which are also hugely influential. It's only one part of the empire. However, there are parts of his sort of stable times radio, the Sunday Times. You can see how they are viable and profitable media projects for the 21st century. The Sun isn't one of those. Partly to be celebrated, but that was always the game, right? He is not making money from his UK outlets. It's about shaping the anglophone political sense of possibility. The big money he's always made has been in the States. I see what you're saying about this was never really about profit when it came to the Sun. It was about influence, but the reason it's not making a profit is tied to the fact it is losing influence. No, if its circulation has dramatically fallen, that's why he's not making a profit anymore, then presumably whatever is written in the Sun, whatever party the Sun endorses at the next general election is going to be less important than it was a decade ago, or do you think I'm mistaken there? I don't think you're mistaken. Clearly the Sun isn't deciding elections like they claimed to in 1992, right? It was the Sun that won it. I'm not going to give them the cue doors to say that was correct, but it was more plausible then than it is now. Of course, remember, in 2017, the Daily Mail had, I think, the first 16 pages of the Daily Mail on the day of the 2017 general election was a hit job on Jeremy Corbyn. It didn't seem to have an impact, but I think you have to accept Rupert Murdoch as a variable, right? You've got Harper Collins, I think, as his publishing house. You've got talk radio. You've got the Sun. You've got the Times. You've got the Sunday Times. He operates in fundamentally an alt-right media ecology in this country, which, by the way, is the mainstream media. It's not, who was it? It's, you know, oh, what's our, you know, Fox News and Brightbutt? No. In this country, that is LBC and the Daily Mail and the Sun and the Express and the Telegraph. The alt-right is the mainstream media here. And I think, you know, his outlets are a big part of that. And sadly, because, you know, the BBC, because of cuts, but also, I think, because of politics, really does still take a lead in terms of its political agenda from the newspapers. And that alt-right, you know, tabloid sphere, which a significant extent is influenced by Murdoch's papers. So, yes, he's not as influential as he once was, but I still think people like Murdoch, the Barclay brothers, Viscount Rodomir, none of who paid tax here as UK nationals. And yet they think they should be allowed to shape the political debate in this country about the appropriate levels of tax and public spending and so on. Obviously, disgusting human beings, I think they really do still play a major role in the politics country and a sense of product. Let's go, possibility.