Fox News And The Saudi Prince
In my perception, the Fox Network has been quite cautious about saying anything even slightly negative about Islam ever since some outspoken Muslim civil-right groups objected to the plot of 24, a weekly series in which a terrorist was portrayed by an Arab-looking actor. In reaction to the objections or out of fear of legal repercussions--probably both--the network released of a filmed statement by actor Kiefer Sutherland. This statement amounted to a disclaimer: Not all Muslims are terrorists. When I saw that little snippet, I thought to myself, "Well, this is stupid. CAIR [which had, on its website, patted itself on the back as to success in combatting the sterotyping of Muslims] just called attention to something I would never have thought of. 24 is a TV show, not the evening news."
Now comes the following September 25, 2005 article, which I learned of at Jihad Watch/Dhimmi Watch:
"Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal has purchased 5.46 percent of the Fox corporation, according to Gulf Daily News, raising concern that the conservative Fox News may soften its anti-terror stance due to the views of the new shareholder.DC Watson made the following comment to the article at Jihad Watch/Dhimmi Watch:
"Al-Waleed, the nephew of the late Saudi King Fahd, was in the news when he visited the World Trade Center's remains just after the September 11th attacks and offered then-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani a $10 million check for relief efforts. Al-Waleed then released a statement blaming US foreign policy and support for Israel for the attacks.
"Giuliani returned the prince's check with a statement that, '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.'"
"When Fox begins to lose its share of the market, the board of directors need to look no further than [bin Talal], who has a strong resemblence [sic] to Saturday Night Live's Father Guido Sarducci.Will we be seeing less Islamophobia from Fox News? Not that we saw much in the first place.
"You can already see a change in O'Reilly, and the other Dhimmis will follow. Our relationship with the Saudis have proven to be nothing but disasterous [sic] for the U.S."
Add to the above the following information dated September 22, 2005 [my emphases added in bold]:
"An August 29, 2005 program on Saudi Iqra TV was devoted to supporting Jihad in Palestine. The program host began by telling all Saudis that they must donate and explained how to do so.
"A caption then appeared on the screen: 'Saudi Committee for Support of the Al-Quds Intifada, Account No. 98, a joint account at all Saudi banks.' A moderator stated that 'Jihad is the pinnacle of Islam' and explained that the funds would go directly to those waging Jihad, where it would 'help them carry out this mission.'
"The program included the secretary-general of the Saudi government's Muslim World League Koran Memorization Commission, Sheikh Abdallah Basfar, who explained why it was an 'obligation' for all Muslims to support Jihad. He also promised that 'all of the funds sent via the known charities and organizations' would reach 'your Muslim brothers.' "
posted by Always On Watch @ 9/26/2005 08:45:00 PM
35 comments
35 Comments:
We wouldn't let China buy an American oil company. We shouldn't let Fox do business in the United States anymore. Saudi Arabia supports terrorism. End of story.
Aaaarrrrrrggggggghhhhhhhhh!
We will never defeat the enemy if we keep cuddling up next to the SOB. I agree 100% with Pastorius: Send Fox back to Great Britain.
Is there NO integrity in the corporate world?
As much as you can buy.
I'm glad I quit watching TV.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic
notch this up to the same mentality that has US corps selling out huge portions of thier buisness to China.
Selling our futures to increase our short term gains...
This is where capitalism has it's "cons".
But G . . . Capitalism is not the problem. Capitalism is a good thing. The issue is really, "what will you do to achieve capital?" If you will do anything, then there is an underlying integrity issue. If you will do nothing, then you probably live in New Orleans.
Anyone who "sells out" their country for personal gain is a scum sucking @%#!!$%. Some things are MORE important than the bottom line, such as having a bottom line fifteen years down the road.
lol, the New Orleans comment smells of Bortz.
I agree, but this is one of the bad sides of true capitalism, it allows for the "scum sucking "@#%!$%" to sell out anyone they want.
I cant remeber who it was that said it but the quote "Democracy is the worst kind of government... except for every other kind" applies to capitalism. It is the worst type of economy... except every other type of economy.
You're right, Samwich. We are teetering between a command economy and capitalism. It is sad, I think, that capitalists (because they lack integrity) require government regulation and oversight. Alas, it has always been thus. If men were but angels, there would be no need for government.
Under capitalism, when the scum-suckers are exposed, they can be brought to their economic knees (as Samwich said, "a self-correcting system") as the the rules of free enterprise come into play. Not so under socialism, where the central government is the scum-sucker and nearly impossible to dislodge.
No -ism in the world guarantees that people won't exercise their natural propensity for greed. Some -isms, however, make it much easier to prevent the continuance of greed--if only people have some kind of longterm view and a sense of integrity. Today, too many are consumed with promoting their own well being without much thought of future generations, consequences, morals, values, etc. Are we seeing the death of good character?
Mustang is right: those who sell out their nation for monetary gain are scum. They do damage to future generations and bring down the cohesion of their present society as the self-serving ones line their own pockets.
In many ways, this nation seems to have lost its conscience.
I'm wondering about foreign investment in other of the U.S. media. Is ABC/Disney (Michael Graham worked for ABC affiliate WMAL Radio) going through some kind of bidding or buy-out?
Looks as if freedom of press/speech is being sold down the river, doesn't it?
On Fox and circumventing FCC Regulations limiting foreign ownership to 25% 1995 Fox Case
-FJ
Gee, all this FCC "leniency" during the Clinton administration. I smell fresh baked apple pie.
-FJ
Didn't a Saudi guy already have an interest in FOX for years now (at least pre-2003)? Is this really something new? Also, since we have capitolism, are we able to stop someone from buying shares of a stock? Is that controllable? (I'm genuinely asking)
I assume it is Esther. Otherwise, what's the point of the following SEC filing requirements?
---
"Any person or group of persons (institutional) who acquire a beneficial ownership of more than 5% of a class of registered equity securities are required to file schedule 13D, and sometimes 13/A, 13F, 13G, and 14D-1
NOTE: These filings are considered "schedules," not forms. They are preceded with SC (e.g. SC13D, etc.)
Schedule 13D - Filed when a person or group of persons owns 5% or more of equity
Schedule 13/A - Filed if there are any material changes in ownership
Schedule 13F - Quarterly filing disclosing holding by institutional investment managers of $100 million or more
Schedule 13G - Shortened version of 13D used by specified types of institutions (banks, brokers/dealers, insurance companies)
Schedule 14D - Filed if an offer to purchase securities is made, and if the offer is accepted, the entity would then own 5% or more of equity."
---
Sorry, I'm not a stock "trader" so I can't claim to know what the Securities Exchange Commission really does with the data it acquires other than speculate that it forensically investigates things LONG after the the public becomes aware of "problems".
-FJ
Of course, if a company own 4%, and another company owns 4%, and a person controls, but doesn't own entirely, BOTH of those companies, I wonder if HE has to file. I doubt it.
-FJ
It's definitely concerning. In one sense, I am surprised and in another sense, I am not. 5% at this point does not give him much interest in how the corporation will be run, or in the policies.
What will be interesting to see, is whether or not FOX will soften their stance. At this point in time, I have a hard time imagining much will change, because heavy draws like O'Reilly and Hannity will not tolerate being censored. Lose them, lose a lot. And, FOX would not be top dog right now, if those big draws were not there.
Another thing is, if FOX were to abandon the market that put them on top, another network would be able to step up and take that market away. It would be a very risky move on FOX's part, to allow this bozo to persuade the upper echelon of policy makers to risk such a move.
Thanks to all who stopped by.
When I first learned about bin Talal's investment in Fox, I thought, "Okay. But that's a low percentage. The FCC has some kind of regulation which will curb significant foreign investment in our media."
Then along comes FJ to inform me that the FCC rule can be waived. That information from 1995 is alarming. Who else owns shares of our media? How does one find the list of investors? If 12 foreign investors each own 5%, that is 60%.
I agree with Samwich that control of the media is power as it controls the flow of ideas. And deep pockets control the media. Ratings can be overridden by special-interest groups if those special-interest groups have enough financial backing.
Food for thought:
(1) Robert Spencer's The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam is on the NY Times's list of bestsellers. Is there a reason we aren't hearing about that book in the visual MSM?
(2) The MSM didn't cover the story about the Flight 93 Memorial (The Crescent Embrace). Because Hurricane Katrina was the big story, or for a different reason?
(3) We see very few news stories exposing the Saudi connections to terrorism.
(4) We see very few news stories about various money-laundering done to fund terrorism. Over @
www.northernvirginiastan.blogspot.com
many articles deal with this issue. Few of those stories receive media attention. Is there already media control operating?
(5) I've heard that ABC is up for sale. Who's buying?
(6) Are we all aware of the recognize-Ramadan bill in Congress?
Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are only as independent as the media owners will allow. Personally, I wasn't satisfied with Fox's coverage of the Michael Graham story. Also, if one regularly checks CAIR's web site @
www.cair-net.org ,
one will find that CAIR is active in condemning many media, including newspapers, for saying anything negative about Islam.
Rudy is a real man of courage and if he ever gets in the White House the Saudis better start packing. Interestingly , the Senator who drives Prince Bandar up the wall the most is Charles Schumer. Thus he can not be all bad . On meet the press about six months ago Bandar went on an anti Schumer rant. Notice he said nothing about Hillary, Kerry, Boxer etc.
I do not like Schumers idiotic grandstanding but he is a better breed of human then Hillary.
Beak,
I cannot communicate to you the instantaneous respect I developed for Giuliani when he turned down that check from Saudi. A real man! Don't take a handout from the people who helped to fund the destruction of your city. Besides, that check was a pr move on Saudi's part.
Now, of course, the Saudi regime realizes that they are a target of terrorism for the minimum done to combat terrorism. The regime is all about the money and the power, and has been playing both sides for decades.
You're right about Schumer. In spite of his many faults, he does recognize the threat from Islamism. His cronies don't listen when he makes incisive points about that danger. The media don't cover certain stories about Schumer, particularly his concerns about the Islamic Saudi Academy.
I wonder how much Giuliani knows about foreign investments in our media?
Not just Saudi folks... China.. I just put up a post about GE buying into China... again, we buy into them, but they have rules to make sure no one can own them... too bad we dont.
Hmmm old routine Duck learn to say it President Gulianni . Remember even if every allegation were true these allegations pale in regards to the Clintons . Re Cattle futures , Marc Rich , Saudi Money in the presidential library.
Game over Duck
Get some new material
Sam
Hillary will not be protected and has a temper problem. When people start asking about the Sudanese offer of Bin Ladden and Marc Rich she will lose it.
Duck,
I did indeed know that Saudi is investing in many American enterprises.
My point is that foreign control of the media is policy control too--and mind control, as well.
Saudi is not our ally. GWB's recent granting of aid to Saudi because Saudi has done much to control terrorism is an atrocity.
Beak and Samwich,
I don't know which of you is correct. But many a political career has been made by the media.
I believe that Hillary is readying herself for the 2008 National Election. She's below the radar right now, and such laying low on her part tells me that, closer to he time for the Democratic Party to choose a candidate, she'll pop up with some people-pleasing idea which sounds good; that idea will get widespread coverage and could override her past.
GWB got re-elected because of reaction to 9/11. I'm don't believe he'd have been re-elected otherwise. If there is another major attack on our shores (God forbid!), Giuliani's chances of winning will be greatly increased.
Most voters don't bother to educate themselves about the candidates. In fact, the msm actively work to prevent obtaining the necessary education.
Samwich,
When Islam evolves enough to invent toilet paper, maybe we can consider more immigration.
LOL!
well that just about sums it up doesnt it folks? LOL
Mr. Ducky,
I'd say that Saudi is worse than Murdoch because Wahhabists wage jihad.
I frequently decry our dependence on foreign investment.
BTW, have you seen the invitation for you @
http://thecrankfiles.blogspot.com/
2005/09/so-shall-ye-reap.html ?
Just a suggestion...You know, you really should start your own blog, as one fellow here suggested a while back. Then all of us could get the big picture as to your views. Truly, I am not being sarcastic when I say this. I find that trying to organize my thoughts and feelings into a blog article helps me in many ways--though such a commitment is time consuming. Your Blogger profile, if accurate, gives a clue as to your predilections (as in books and movies), but doesn't reveal much about your political and sociological views.
Samwich,
Yes, I do remember. My husband and I discussed this earlier today. He is well aware of it in the hot-rod car market. We see it all the time.
Any way for an individual not to be so susceptible?
I have a book called The Fallacy Detective, which helps one to discern such tactics, but I don't know that the material precisely applies to what you and I are discussing here. I purchased the book primarily for my debate classes @
www.ChristianLogic.com
The format is student-friendly.
BTW, my husband and I watched that Geena Davis show the other night. A tool for the upcoming National Elections, right?
AOW... I will be interested to monitor that Geena Davis show and see how they handle the hot button issues. Lord knows West Wing always screws 'em up. ;)
samwich,
Do you realize the the letter S is meant to represent the Snakelike desires within the human body? Just as the letter e represents "ears" and the the letter i represent "eyes" and the letter y represent "because". Just curious.
-FJ
Samwich,
Yes, I understand what you are saying by citing Matther 4:8-9. Hasn't the desire to elevate oneself over others been the story of human history?
What I meant earlier was about educating oneself so as not to be so vulnerable. One can still know God and still not be aware of the vulnerability. Ever read The Screwtape Letters?
I was thinking, too, along the lines of books which would help some of my high schoolers. I'll look into those you have recommended.
I have heard of Packard's book before, I think.
sammy, did you also know that w stood for wisdom? Could THAT be why all those keys disappeared off the whitehouse computers??? I had heard rumors to the effect that it was because Bush's middle initial was w. Well, I guess that theory is toast!
-FJ
Samwich,
Politicians in general, heh?
I am not Mormon, but I believe much of the same as in your second paragraph. Remember how the Israelites loved Saul because he was so pleasing in physical appearance? But he was spiritually unfit to be king. Man is often persuaded by human charisma. God looks on the heart.
As a Protestant, I believe that we are all equal before God: all are sinners and salvation is free for the asking. After sanctification comes justification, which is the outward manifestation by works. I don't know what Mormons believe in this regard.
My faith has no room for pride. God gave me any gifts (talents) which I have, and it's my responsibility as His child to use those gifts to serve Him.
PS: I have a question and hope I won't be offending you. Wasn't there a time when Mormons didn't allow blacks full membership? I seem to remember hearing that somewhere. I could, of course, be wrong.
Samwich,
Thanks for answering my question and for the "crash course." I see some points we would disagree on, but I won't start a huge theological discussion; you, no doubt, know those differences anyway.
"Now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face."
BTW, my husband's aunt and uncle converted to Mormonism many years ago. She can visit that inner part of the temple (I think I have that correct) and does all the family genealogical research. We see her as often as we can, but don't debate theology.
Very informative. Will check on you more often. Your visit to my blogsite is welcomed. almagz.blogspot.com
Post a Comment
<< Home