Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, the deflection is this thread. With our country in a horrible economic mess with no light at the end of the tunnel (because of DEMOCRATS), and the stupid supporters of this administration drinking the koolaid, up pops this thread that has absolutely no relevance. Keep on deflecting.
7% stake must mean a lot more to you than it does to people who actually invest.
That 7% translates into the second largest shareholder in Newscorp. That's second only to Rupert Murdoch himself. And he does, indeed, have influence over Fox's content.
"Fox News covered riots in Paris under a banner saying "Muslim riots." Alwaleed allegedly called Murdoch and had him change the banner to say "Civil riots." Investigative journalist Joseph Trento also reported that a comment he recently made on a Fox Network morning news show, Fox and Friends, about Saudi Arabian money still financing Al Qaeda, was edited out of the show. Trento also reports that Alwaleed "has personally donated huge amounts of money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers." In a rare interview with Fox News' Neil Cavuto in January, AlWaleed explained his personal reasons for seeking influence in American politics: the U.S. buys Saudi Arabia's oil, and the bulk of his country's gross domestic product (GDP) comes from oil. Fox News reliably broadcasts misinformation on clean energy, and aggressively fights efforts to move America away from being dependent on a fossil fuels."
http://www.prwatch.org/node/8906 (broken link)
7% does "mean a lot".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolpfo
Again, according to the FOX own logic, this funding connection makes the mosque EVIL. So, now that we know FOX is funded by the same guy, then does that mean:
1. FOX as evil as the mosque builders?
2. FOX "guilt by association" logic is fueled by political agenda, and is flawed?
No, the deflection is this thread. With our country in a horrible economic mess with no light at the end of the tunnel (because of DEMOCRATS), and the stupid supporters of this administration drinking the koolaid, up pops this thread that has absolutely no relevance. Keep on deflecting.
The thread is irrelevant, yet you decide to post in it. Mm-hmm.
Now, if you were to argue that the debate about converting a Burlington Coat Factory to a Muslim culture center is a fabricated controversy designed to act as wedge issue, we could probably agree. There are far more important matters that should dominate the news cycle.
But as I've often decried, most American newsmedia no longer sell news to the public, they sell audiences to advertisers. And economy is hard, complex and boring stuff, whereas this speaks directly to the emotions in the reactionary, neophobe and xenophobe segment that Fox targets so competently.
That 7% translates into the second largest shareholder in Newscorp. That's second only to Rupert Murdoch himself. And he does, indeed, have influence over Fox's content.
"Fox News covered riots in Paris under a banner saying "Muslim riots." Alwaleed allegedly called Murdoch and had him change the banner to say "Civil riots." Investigative journalist Joseph Trento also reported that a comment he recently made on a Fox Network morning news show, Fox and Friends, about Saudi Arabian money still financing Al Qaeda, was edited out of the show. Trento also reports that Alwaleed "has personally donated huge amounts of money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers." In a rare interview with Fox News' Neil Cavuto in January, AlWaleed explained his personal reasons for seeking influence in American politics: the U.S. buys Saudi Arabia's oil, and the bulk of his country's gross domestic product (GDP) comes from oil. Fox News reliably broadcasts misinformation on clean energy, and aggressively fights efforts to move America away from being dependent on a fossil fuels."
Saudi Prince, Now Part Owner of Murdoch's News Corp., Influences Fox News | Center for Media and Democracy (http://www.prwatch.org/node/8906 - broken link)
7% does "mean a lot". 3. Both of the above.
No it doesn't. It means nothing in terms of policy or what direction the company takes. You really ought to learn what voting shares are...
The thread is irrelevant, yet you decide to post in it. Mm-hmm.
Now, if you were to argue that the debate about converting a Burlington Coat Factory to a Muslim culture center is a fabricated controversy designed to act as wedge issue, we could probably agree. There are far more important matters that should dominate the news cycle.
But as I've often decried, most American newsmedia no longer sell news to the public, they sell audiences to advertisers. And economy is hard, complex and boring stuff, whereas this speaks directly to the emotions in the reactionary, neophobe and xenophobe segment that Fox targets so competently.
The company is publicly listed in the Saudi Stock Exchange but only 6% of the shares are public, the rest is privately owned with the majority stakeholder, Prince Alwaleed holding 94% shares.
Its international investments include (or have included)
its not actual news. most reasonable people can conclude that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
