When I first heard the story about James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks arriving uninvited on the Independent's news floor launching a vigorous and allegedly uninhibited verbal assault on editor-in-chief Simon Kelner, frankly I found it scarcely believable. Can you imagine? All that shouting and bawling from two of News Corporation's most senior executives? In front of witnesses? Surely not. And why? Because they were upset about some Murdoch references in the adverts accompanying the Indy's current relaunch? Hardly seems likely does it?

Well maybe, but continuing in the vein of "scarcely believable", try this. As Michael Wolff – Vanity Fair writer and Murdoch biographer – wrote yesterday, there are good reasons why Murdoch's senior UK management might be starting to feel the strain. It is claimed they spent many months – and presumably much of their personal corporate political capital – persuading Murdoch senior, against his own better judgment, to switch sides and back David Cameron. Events of the last week, unexpected as they were, have made it entirely possible that Cameron will not be Britain's next prime minister. For the Murdoch empire (as David Yelland wrote on Monday) this would be the first time in decades they'd be without a direct and sympathetic line to No 10.

And it's not the first time it's happened either. Murdoch senior was reportedly persuaded by two very senior US executives, again, against his better judgment to back McCain rather than Obama for president. The result of that election has left Murdoch dangerously short of the kind of political influence he's used to in a media marketplace where there is so much to play for in regulatory and legislative terms. And if Cameron fails to win in the UK, Murdoch and News Corp will have done the double – and not in a good way. Now, if this is bad for News Corp it's unimaginably terrible for the senior executives who having apparently so misread the public mood then persuaded the boss to make the wrong call.

And indeed, following the McCain fiasco it was one of those executives – Fox News chief Roger Ailes – who found himself on the wrong end of a remarkably personal public attack. The Murdoch family were said to be "ashamed and sickened..." by Ailes' "horrendous and sustained disregard of the journalistic standards that News Corp, its founder and every other global media business aspires to". The message was clear – Ailes was not the sort of man to be running such an important part of News Corp. And who delivered it? Step forward Matthew Freud – husband of Elizabeth Murdoch and son-in-law of you know who.

And what has that got to do with events closer to home? Well, who introduced Simon Kelner to the Indy's new Russian owners and is deeply involved in the paper's relaunch campaign (which has included those anti-Murdoch posters and TV adverts)? None other than the very same Matthew Freud. So maybe it's knowing it came from him, from inside the family so to speak, that made the Indy's adverts saying "Rupert Murdoch will not decide the outcome of the election – you will" just so annoying. Of course it might also be a rather direct if unwelcome reminder – especially to the very senior executives who will surely get the blame – that News Corp might well have backed the wrong electoral horse. And that might be seen to have some potential impact on the biggest question of all: who will succeed Rupert Murdoch at the top of the world's most successful media business?

As I said, scarcely believable.

PS. Check out this morning's free Independent wrap-around cover – "Lebedev won't decide this election …" Hard to believe he was part of the Indy campaign before the Wednesday newsrooom visit.

• More Guardian election comment from Cif at the polls

• More election media coverage at mediatheguardian.com