Saudi Prince buys 5% of Fox News

[Montgomery Burns]

This is disturbing. Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, who made headlines after Sept 11th when he visited Ground Zero and offered then-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani a $10 million cheque for relief efforts, has bought 5% of the Fox News Channel.

A few days later after offering Giulani a $10 million cheque, the prince released a statement that blamed the US and its support for the only democracy in the Middle East - Israel - for the devastating 9/11 attacks. To his credit, “America’s Mayor” immediately returned the prince’s check with a statement: “There is no moral equivalent for this attack. The people who did it lost any right to ask for justification when they slaughtered…innocent people….Not only are those statements wrong, they’re part of the problem.”

This may translate into a worrisome new set of constraints on the network millions of Americans have come to rely upon for fair and balanced reporting. Nowhere has this been more important than Fox’s news coverage of the Middle East - a region CNN (especially its international arm), the BBC, the CBC, and most mainstream print outlets cover with only slightly less hostility to America than does Al-Jazeera.

This is worrisome.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Montgomery Burns,

I don't see 5% ownership as worrisome, it is not enough to have 'policy control', unless you see it as 'the thin end of the wedge'.

This may translate into a worrisome new set of constraints on the network millions of Americans have come to rely upon for fair and balanced reporting. Nowhere has this been more important than Fox’s news coverage of the Middle East - a region CNN (especially its international arm), the BBC, the CBC, and most mainstream print outlets cover with only slightly less hostility to America than does Al-Jazeera.

Apart from 'fair and balanced' being laughable, I read from all of those news stations regularly. I am not sure how much further right CNN could go... when the invasion of Iraq happened, CNN was 'beating the war drum' the loudest, and I eventually got tired of the blatant 'pro-US propaganda' that filled up the hours between the minutes of actual news. If Fox is considered by some to be 'fair and balanced', they should be somewhere in the middle...yet I can't see how there could be any room to stand 'further right' of it...

[Toro]

He's also one of the largest shareholders in Citigroup and Time Warner.

I don't think its a big deal.

[cybercoma]

American media is so nationalistic and pro-government beause the government is actually their source of information. They don't investigate anything anymore, instead they take what comes off the spooler from the government and report it accordingly. The United States hasn't even bothered to hide this fact, they made an announcement about setting up the office to do this. Fair and balanced doesn't exist anymore. We only get to know what the government wants us to know and from the angle they want us to see.

[cybercoma]

And I hardly see how CBC could be any better being funded by the government and all. Sure they'll pretend to be fair, but how much are they sweeping under the carpet for the people who write the cheques?

[newbie]

Doesn't surprise me at all. And as far as fair and balanced goes, it was never displayed at Fox anyway.

[Montgomery Burns]

Dear Montgomery Burns,

I don't see 5% ownership as worrisome, it is not enough to have 'policy control', unless you see it as 'the thin end of the wedge'.

This may translate into a worrisome new set of constraints on the network millions of Americans have come to rely upon for fair and balanced reporting. Nowhere has this been more important than Fox’s news coverage of the Middle East - a region CNN (especially its international arm), the BBC, the CBC, and most mainstream print outlets cover with only slightly less hostility to America than does Al-Jazeera.

Apart from 'fair and balanced' being laughable, I read from all of those news stations regularly. I am not sure how much further right CNN could go... when the invasion of Iraq happened, CNN was 'beating the war drum' the loudest, and I eventually got tired of the blatant 'pro-US propaganda' that filled up the hours between the minutes of actual news. If Fox is considered by some to be 'fair and balanced', they should be somewhere in the middle...yet I can't see how there could be any room to stand 'further right' of it...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I hope you are right about the 5% ownership, but I disagree with your assessment of CNN. I think CNN is left-centre but not as left as the CBC or BBC, although I would put CNN International with the CBC and BBC; loathsome propaganda against conservatives/rightwingers.

And finally, CNN had two John Kerry campaign advisors as hosts of Crossfire, Paul Begala and James Carville -- a blatant conflict of interest. As you will recall, The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan took a leave of absence when she went to work for the Bush/Cheney campaign -- the ethical thing to do.

[Black Dog]

And finally, CNN had two John Kerry campaign advisors as hosts of Crossfire, Paul Begala and James Carville -- a blatant conflict of interest. As you will recall, The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan took a leave of absence when she went to work for the Bush/Cheney campaign -- the ethical thing to do.

Peggy Noonan has never really stopped working for Cheney/Bush.

As for the oft-trotted out Carville/Begala business: they were on Crossfire for chrissakes. They weren't reporting, they were on the political television's equivilant of WWE wrasslin'. Both were on the show as token Democrats, a position that wouldn't change regardless of their status with the Kerry campaign. But while we're at it, let's mention a few other conflicts of interest:

-Sean Hannity: narrated a video for the GOP Convention while still reporting on the convention for Fox.

-Bob Novak was allowed to stay on the air and comment on the Valerie Plame affair, despite being at the center of the scandal.

-Fox reporter Carl Cameron covered the 2000 election despite the fact that his wife was working for the Bush campaign.

Curse you leftist media!

[Montgomery Burns]

You forgot to mention that Fox's Carl Cameron broke the Bush DUI story a few days before the 2000 election, turning what appeared to be a sure Bush win, into a nail-biter.

Curses that rightwing propagandic Faux News! :angry:

Oh, and Begala and Carville - two Kerry campaign advisors - according to you, "(They) weren't reporting". What do you mean by that?

[Montgomery Burns]

If true--a big if--this is worrisome:

Al-Walid also criticised US media which he described as “in general ... pro-Israel.” But he also accused Arabs of not being pro-active in fighting the allegedly slanted media.

He said that during last month’s street protests in France, the US television network Fox — owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation in which Al-Walid himself has shares — ran a banner saying: “Muslim riots.”

“I picked up the phone and called Murdoch... (and told him) these are not Muslim riots, these are riots out of poverty,” he said.

“Within 30 minutes, the title was changed from Muslim riots to civil riots.”

You may recall that al-Walid bin Talal is the billionaire Saudi Prince whose offer of $10 million after the 9/11 atrocities was rejected by Rudy Giuliani, because al-Wahid bin Talal wanted Giuliani to blame 9-11 on the Mid East's eternal boogyman--the Jooos.

Please Fox News. You are basically the only MSM news source that is not pulling for the Islamofascists to defeat democracy in Iraq and basically the only MSM news source that is not advocating the destruction of the democratic Mid East country called Israel.

Please don't let down the millions who rely on you for fair and balanced reporting. I'll cancel my Fox News feed if you do. :angry:

[newbie]

  I'll cancel my Fox News feed if you do.  :angry:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That will be sure to piss them off Monty.

[Black Dog]

Oh, and Begala and Carville - two Kerry campaign advisors - according to you, "(They) weren't reporting". What do you mean by that?

They were panellists on a round table show. Not reporters.

[sharkman]

I wonder if this will mellow out Fox bashers. Nah, only 5%. It does concern us Fox fans, however. The prince could keep buying up shares and work his way over 10% and keep making noises about anti muslim bias. Although O'Reilly would not let some prince get between him and the 'folks', I could see how it could be bad news.

[Montgomery Burns]

Oh, and Begala and Carville - two Kerry campaign advisors - according to you, "(They) weren't reporting". What do you mean by that?

They were panellists on a round table show. Not reporters.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They are the hosts of the show.

I have to chuckle at BD trying to differentiate between reporters and panelists/opinionists now.

When one mentions Fox News to a "progressive" leftwinger, what is the first thing they complain about? Bill "O'Lielly" and Sean "Insanity"--two opinionists.

Surprisingly their 3rd most hated on Fox News appears to be Alan Colmes. I guess Colmes is too reasonable for them.