T Nation

Fox News and Prince Al Waleed bin Talal


#1

What do you conservatives who love Fox news think about this man? I don't pay much attention to fox, but thought it was kinda odd a Saudi Prince has so much control over the company.

If you watch fox, apparently that's your daddy.


#2

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#3

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
What do you conservatives who love Fox news think about this man? I don’t pay much attention to fox, but thought it was kinda odd a Saudi Prince has so much control over the company.

If you watch fox, apparently that’s your daddy.[/quote]

“Control?” Owning only 5% of any company anywhere hardly grants you “control.”

Also, by your reckoning if you use Twitter, apparently he’s your daddy. As well as AOL, Apple Inc., MCI Inc., Motorola, Eastman Kodak and other technology and media companies.

Sevvie, for you this is another one in a long line of you stepping into the batter’s box and making three whiffs. Maybe in 2014 you can get your numbers up a bit from your current life batting average of .006. Or maybe baseball (PWI) just isn’t your game and you need to try your hand somewhere else.

Do you even lift?[/quote]

Wow, I didn’t realize it would twist your panties with a dusting of sand on your clit. Now tell me how you really feel. It doesn’t see to bug you at all. lol.

But seriously, any conservative with a spine should be at least curious about this. As 5% owner he may be one of the largest holders there is. I think he’s rumored to be #2. #2 being daddy in most relationships, yeah… He’s Fox’s daddy, or uncle or something.

Well? Heads in the sand? Or is it okay? I want to hear people say they are okay with it is all. lol. If you are okay with it, you are okay with a Saudi Prince and an Australian with such a great reputation in the media shaping your view of the world.

They seriously aren’t 'Mericans. So I guess we need to put more trust in the Saudi’s and Aussies? Some confusing ass shit you guys are into.

If that’s okay with you guys, I want to hear it.

Yeah, I love to LIFT. Not parade around in women’s panties in front of beer belly dudes who claim to be physique experts at a beauty pageant for muscles.


#4

Pretty funny old but good info on this. The Kingdom foundation lol. Those of you conservatives that have a pair should watch the John Stewart vid, see 3.02 and tell me how that makes you feel.

Newer, scarier info is that people in Saudi are being imprisoned for things they put on twitter toolbox, I mean pushy.


#5

If I get investing correctly, a good investor will buy into a company he likes and believes will yield a profit. Having a vote or controlling interest in a company doesn’t mean you’re going to tinker with its function or direction. You can cast votes amounting to your # of shares on topics that are brought up by a board of directors, but even that gets funny when you have common share equivalencies and select shares which may eliminate your eligibility to vote.

Anyways, having an interest in a company doesn’t necessarily mean he’s running it. A smart person would let the people who do what they do well do it- which is make him money. And he seems like a pretty smart person.

Then again, I could be wrong.


#6

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
If I get investing correctly, a good investor will buy into a company he likes and believes will yield a profit. Having a vote or controlling interest in a company doesn’t mean you’re going to tinker with its function or direction. You can cast votes amounting to your # of shares on topics that are brought up by a board of directors, but even that gets funny when you have common share equivalencies and select shares which may eliminate your eligibility to vote.

Anyways, having an interest in a company doesn’t necessarily mean he’s running it. A smart person would let the people who do what they do well do it- which is make him money. And he seems like a pretty smart person.

Then again, I could be wrong.

[/quote]

Thanks for the honesty. I agree with you completely, the thing that’s left is realizing who’s interest the news has.

I mean we can assume that the media is some righteous self correcting business, but usually the media has certain people’s interest in mind. Just look at the fiasco Rupert is in in the U.K. Do you think that this particular media hub has it’s top investors in mind and at heart, or it’s target audience or Americans in general being neither of the top investors are Americans?

No mental gymnastics here, just trying to point something out folks. You still think they are looking out for you? scribble scribble


#7

One of the things that will be interesting to follow is the “direction” FOX News takes once the President is out of office.

There is no question that the President has been an easy (and lucrative) target on which to focus much of their programming. What happens when he is gone should prove one way or the other their strength (or weakness) as a viable news source.

Mufasa


#8

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
One of the things that will be interesting to follow is the “direction” FOX News takes once the President is out of office.

There is no question that the President has been an easy (and lucrative) target on which to focus much of their programming. What happens when he is gone should prove one way or the other their strength (or weakness) as a viable news source.

Mufasa[/quote]

I’m interested in how carefully Fox manages to avoid saying negative things about Saudi Arabia. It’s kinda strange, imo they like to stir up fear of the unknown about Islam, then they have this completely different opinion when it came to things like G.W. and the King of Arabia kissing one another on the mouth and holding hands. It’s just kinda strange being Saudi Arabia is where both Mecca and Medina are, and basically the home of Islam. It’s not like the people involved in the Saudi family haven’t had their dabblings in terror funding either.

I always find them interesting. Especially Bill and his Harvard mouthed bullshit, habits of cutting people off mid sentence and then claiming victory. Dude was one of the worst bullies on t.v. when I watched him.

It’s like there’s this culture in washington where there are dems and repubs, and then there is everyone else/ civilian dems nd repubs. The washington dems and repubs control the world view of their sub civilians while doing things contradictory to the view and platform they portray.

It’s all a bunch of bullshit, on both sides, dems and repubs.


#9

[quote]Severiano wrote:
What do you conservatives who love Fox news think about this man? I don’t pay much attention to fox, but thought it was kinda odd a Saudi Prince has so much control over the company.

If you watch fox, apparently that’s your daddy.[/quote]

Fox is not conservative.

It’s merely not part of the regime-controlled press, and thus a slightly more bearable option.


#10

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

There is no question that the President has been an easy (and lucrative) target on which to focus much of their programming. What happens when he is gone should prove one way or the other their strength (or weakness) as a viable news source.

Mufasa[/quote]

Agreed Muf, but lots of outlets(both print and T.V) made a ton of money throwing Dubya under the bus every chance they got.

The status quo will remain me thinks.


#11

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
One of the things that will be interesting to follow is the “direction” FOX News takes once the President is out of office.

There is no question that the President has been an easy (and lucrative) target on which to focus much of their programming. What happens when he is gone should prove one way or the other their strength (or weakness) as a viable news source.

Mufasa[/quote]

Not sure I agree with that. People said the same thing about Fox in years past, and they said the ssme thing about Rush Limbaugh when Clinton left office. “Oh no, he won’t have any material now that the low hanging fruit is gone, he’ll fade out”. Not so much at all. Fox has been leading ratings and viewership in a variety of areas before Obama was in office. They will probably continue to profit and lead ratings under the current leadership.

If you’re talking “news bias” then there’s never been anything surprising there, so not sure why Obama would have anything to do with it.


#12

Fox news can just as easily flip to how good things are with a republican presidency as they can to how bad it is to have a democrat in office. Same slant, different day.

Then there are the people who love to hate them and can’t look away. Love 'em or hate 'em, they don’t care as long as you are watching.


#13

Aragorn:

I don’t disagree with what you are saying; but “the message” became MUCH more focused and vitriolic with the President in office. (Look at “pre” Glenn Beck, then Fox afterwards. The ratings and their influence don’t even compare).

I’m also not suggesting that they won’t survive; FOX News will. However, it is doubtful that they will have someone who will keep the message as “laser focused” as President Obama has…

UNLESS (ironically enough!) Hillary becomes President.

Believe me; Murdoch will be dancing in the streets if that happens!

Mufasa


#14

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
What do you conservatives who love Fox news think about this man? I don’t pay much attention to fox, but thought it was kinda odd a Saudi Prince has so much control over the company.

If you watch fox, apparently that’s your daddy.[/quote]

Fox is not conservative.

It’s merely not part of the regime-controlled press, and thus a slightly more bearable option.[/quote]

Ruff…is this an expression of the “Conservative” vs. “Real Conservative” argument that became so prominent in the last GOP Presidential primary?

What IS FOX News?

Mufasa


#15

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Fox news can just as easily flip to how good things are with a republican presidency as they can to how bad it is to have a democrat in office. Same slant, different day.

Then there are the people who love to hate them and can’t look away. Love 'em or hate 'em, they don’t care as long as you are watching.
[/quote]

And people think DUBYA was blamed for everything?

Wait until THIS President gets out of office!

Mufasa


#16

Seems relevant


#17

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Fox news can just as easily flip to how good things are with a republican presidency as they can to how bad it is to have a democrat in office. Same slant, different day.

Then there are the people who love to hate them and can’t look away. Love 'em or hate 'em, they don’t care as long as you are watching.
[/quote]

And people think DUBYA was blamed for everything?

Wait until THIS President gets out of office!

Mufasa[/quote]

Just as many comedians publicly mourned the loss of GWB, news networks will have a moment of silence the best president for news cycles in history.

The next pres, who ever he (or she) may be with have to cause earthquakes or superstorms or something to top Obama.


#18

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
One of the things that will be interesting to follow is the “direction” FOX News takes once the President is out of office.

There is no question that the President has been an easy (and lucrative) target on which to focus much of their programming. What happens when he is gone should prove one way or the other their strength (or weakness) as a viable news source.

Mufasa[/quote]

I’m interested in how carefully Fox manages to avoid saying negative things about Saudi Arabia. It’s kinda strange, imo they like to stir up fear of the unknown about Islam, then they have this completely different opinion when it came to things like G.W. and the King of Arabia kissing one another on the mouth and holding hands. It’s just kinda strange being Saudi Arabia is where both Mecca and Medina are, and basically the home of Islam. It’s not like the people involved in the Saudi family haven’t had their dabblings in terror funding either.

I always find them interesting. Especially Bill and his Harvard mouthed bullshit, habits of cutting people off mid sentence and then claiming victory. Dude was one of the worst bullies on t.v. when I watched him.

It’s like there’s this culture in washington where there are dems and repubs, and then there is everyone else/ civilian dems nd repubs. The washington dems and repubs control the world view of their sub civilians while doing things contradictory to the view and platform they portray.

It’s all a bunch of bullshit, on both sides, dems and repubs. [/quote]

You got good points here but the OP is off. That prince doesn’t have a say in what Fox News does and probably doesn’t care what Fox News says about Saudi b/c he’s in it to make money.

I think that prince has had a large investment in Fox News for several years so I don’t think Fox will be changing the way they report on Saudi at this point. Anyway Saudi is officially an ally and there’s not a lot of benefit for any mainstream news organization to bash Saudi, despite deserving it. Right now it’s all about Iran. Before it was all Syria. Before it was the arab spring. There’s nothing sexy to report about Saudi right now and that has more to do with the typical American news consumer than it does about a prince having a large investment in Fox News.

The deal is - Saudi keeps world oil markets stable, sells oil in US$, buys our second-tier weapons, allows our military bases on their land, and allows US companies to invest heavily. We let Saudi continue on with their disgusting regime and for the important families there to make ridiculous money without doing anything.

It’s easy to turn a blind eye on their shady dealings with terrorists. Plus there is no reporter good enough to uncover shit like that especially b/c Saudi isn’t going to be allowing foreign journalists in to report on their backwardness and shadiness. I’m sure the CIA knows lots of dirt but we’re not going to be seeing that anytime soon b/c the relationship is too important right now.

And of course it’s “all bullshit”. American cable news isn’t around to keep people informed with unbiased news. It’s there for entertainment and providing coverage and messages the target audience expects.


#19

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#20

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
One of the things that will be interesting to follow is the “direction” FOX News takes once the President is out of office.

There is no question that the President has been an easy (and lucrative) target on which to focus much of their programming. What happens when he is gone should prove one way or the other their strength (or weakness) as a viable news source.

Mufasa[/quote]

I’m interested in how carefully Fox manages to avoid saying negative things about Saudi Arabia. It’s kinda strange, imo they like to stir up fear of the unknown about Islam, then they have this completely different opinion when it came to things like G.W. and the King of Arabia kissing one another on the mouth and holding hands. It’s just kinda strange being Saudi Arabia is where both Mecca and Medina are, and basically the home of Islam. It’s not like the people involved in the Saudi family haven’t had their dabblings in terror funding either.

I always find them interesting. Especially Bill and his Harvard mouthed bullshit, habits of cutting people off mid sentence and then claiming victory. Dude was one of the worst bullies on t.v. when I watched him.

It’s like there’s this culture in washington where there are dems and repubs, and then there is everyone else/ civilian dems nd repubs. The washington dems and repubs control the world view of their sub civilians while doing things contradictory to the view and platform they portray.

It’s all a bunch of bullshit, on both sides, dems and repubs. [/quote]

You got good points here but the OP is off. That prince doesn’t have a say in what Fox News does and probably doesn’t care what Fox News says about Saudi b/c he’s in it to make money.

I think that prince has had a large investment in Fox News for several years so I don’t think Fox will be changing the way they report on Saudi at this point. Anyway Saudi is officially an ally and there’s not a lot of benefit for any mainstream news organization to bash Saudi, despite deserving it. Right now it’s all about Iran. Before it was all Syria. Before it was the arab spring. There’s nothing sexy to report about Saudi right now and that has more to do with the typical American news consumer than it does about a prince having a large investment in Fox News.

The deal is - Saudi keeps world oil markets stable, sells oil in US$, buys our second-tier weapons, allows our military bases on their land, and allows US companies to invest heavily. We let Saudi continue on with their disgusting regime and for the important families there to make ridiculous money without doing anything.

It’s easy to turn a blind eye on their shady dealings with terrorists. Plus there is no reporter good enough to uncover shit like that especially b/c Saudi isn’t going to be allowing foreign journalists in to report on their backwardness and shadiness. I’m sure the CIA knows lots of dirt but we’re not going to be seeing that anytime soon b/c the relationship is too important right now.

And of course it’s “all bullshit”. American cable news isn’t around to keep people informed with unbiased news. It’s there for entertainment and providing coverage and messages the target audience expects.[/quote]

Thanks for re-hashing all that…tell us, what news source do you believe speaks the truth?