BREAKING NEWS

Posted on | by Ed

I was stunned to see this press release from Fox News this morning. The key excerpt:

In light of the saturation coverage Fox News Network (FNN) has given the controversy over the proposed mosque at the former World Trade Center site, we feel it is fair to point out to our loyal viewers that 7% of News Corporation, the corporate parent of Fox, Fox News, and Fox Business Network, is owned by Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal through his Kingdom Holding Company. We have taken great pains to conceal this information over the years, referring to the Prince only as "A significant stockholder of the Company, who owns approximately 7% of the Company's Class B Common Stock" in our annual report to the SEC (page 44). But given our viewers' and on-air personalities' strong reactions to Islam, we feel compelled to note that News Corp is partially owned by a certified Muslim (see photo) who regularly patronizes mosques.

Additionally, News Corp has acquired a 10% stake in Rotana, a Saudi multimedia conglomerate that bills itself as "the Arab World's largest entertainment company." We have found this investment in a company that produces Arabic language movies and music that occasionally veer into anti-American tropes popular with Middle Eastern audiences to be quite rewarding.

Finally, in the interest of keeping our position as America's only source for Fair & Balancedtm news, we would like our viewers to be aware of the $1,000,000 contribution News Corp recently made to the Republican Governors Association. These funds will help the RGA mount a consistent attack campaign against Democratic candidates and the incumbent President. FNN viewers should keep this information in mind when considering the network's claims of objectivity.

What refreshing honesty!

47 thoughts on “BREAKING NEWS”

  • J. Dryden says:

    Thing is, Fox can make this disclosure with complete impunity, because they know that *nothing* they say or do will alienate their viewers. *Nothing*. Bear in mind that these viewers still think that when Reagan sold arms to Muslim extremists (who used those same weapons against us), and used the money to subsidize the drug cartels of the nun-murdering contras, *that* was one of his finest hours. Once you realize that, you realize that Fox can do *anything.* *Anything.*

    Dig up MLK's corpse and have him do a minstrel-puppet-show? Their viewers will defend it as "brave" and "what we've been thinking about all along." Have a binding agreement that all on-air talent *must* sodomize an unwilling stranger every week? Their viewers will shrug and figure that "it's what has to happen for us to have access to the truth." Fox is bulletproof. Those who hate it, will hate it and call it out for its slithering hypocrisy. Those who love it, will ignore said slithering hypocrisy, and instead focus on the hypocrisies of their opponents.

    In short, why not disclose this info? It won't do them the slightest bit of harm with the people who keep the ad revenues coming in.

  • Misterben says:

    This is great, but did you compose it in its entirety? If not, can you link us to the original source? Thank you!

  • bb in GA says:

    Is this part of your penance for your pre-1800 diss of literature? Joe Nathan (Dublin is in the Southern part of Ireland) would be proud.

    One question though: Aren't most of the pundits on FNN taking a negative view of the mosque project? How does that benefit the Prince's assumed default position?

    //bb

  • John says:

    The sad part is, even if it Faux themselves showed this on the network every hour for a week, the foxbots that watch it would just come up with reasons why it's perfectly fine.

    Unfortunately, this falls under the same category as the massive military leak: those that are concerned about it already know, and those that don't already know don't care. The audience has already done away with what should be a heavy dose of cognitive dissonance seeing that daring to question the president was Treason™ three years ago, and is Patriotism™ now. If they can handle that, they can swallow anything.

  • Bugboy says:

    "I am massively disappointed in your inability to detect satire, people."

    Sadly, it's hard to tell where the reality ends and the satire begins…but it's true that the zipperhead viewers of this corporate property will scoff at the validity of the claim that the 2nd largest stakeholder in News Corp is indeed a Saudi prince. You can see it in the comments of the trolls already…no one wants to admit they are a tool.

  • displaced Capitalist says:

    I am massively disappointed in your inability to detect satire, people.

    Poe's law. The sad part is that this COULD have happened and as other commenters have noted, Fox viewers would just have been zealous as ever. Nothing would change.

  • You can call me, 'Sir' says:

    The trademark stuck to 'Fair and Balanced' is a nice touch. The concept of having to pay Fox News every time one does or says something that's both fair and balanced is a virtual irony that's almost too delicious.

  • Hazy Davy says:

    Erin's being modest.
    But babies are delicious.

    (And 2 blocks from Ground Zero is Alfanoose, which serves the best middle-eastern food I've ever had, and which is probably run by Muslims.)

  • bb in GA says:

    As an old troll, tool fool uncool, etc etc…

    Please help me understand the corporate aspect of this.

    If Prince Smokesomeweed owns 7% of a (I assume) publicly traded company (Newscorp), what practical influence does this kind of minority ownership have on the day-to-day or policy? I can just humorously visualize the Prince getting on the IFB telling the very pompous Billy O what to do or say.

    I read where his 7% is the second largest ownership block. If he owned a minority share that was much closer to 50% I can imagine that he might be able to induce another small percentage of the ownership to join him in a take-over of the company and, for sure, set policy.

    How can I as an officer or other stockholder of the publicly traded corporation control who buys stock in my company?

    How could he exert his influence other than vindictively selling his stock all at once which might shock the price lower for some period of time?

    //bb

  • Bugboy says:

    @bb in GA

    You rationalizing this proves your own point. If you think his 7% stake in the company doesn't mean anything, you are a tool. You "imagine" that he "might" be able to "induce"…blah blah. Perception is reality…except when you wish that perception to glossed over when it comes to your corporate media mouthpiece. Buck up and own this one. Or STFU.

  • jazzbumpa says:

    Re: Satire is only detectable when it is distinguishable from reality.

    Clear and obvious give-aways that the post was satire.

    We have taken great pains to conceal this information over the years

    partially owned by a certified Muslim (see photo) who regularly patronizes mosques.

    a company that produces Arabic language movies and music that occasionally veer into anti-American tropes

    America's only source for Fair & Balanced ™

    these funds will help the RGA mount a consistent attack campaign against Democratic candidates and the incumbent President. FNN viewers should keep this information in mind when considering the network's claims of objectivity.

    C'mon kids – it aint that hard.

    Tsk tsk,
    JzB

  • John says:

    @bb:

    It's not so much a matter of what control he has over the company. It's more a matter of a company that draws a substantial portion of its money from a Saudi prince while simultaneously talking, pretty much 24/7, about how awful Saudi culture is… well, that's pretty funny.

    Decrying the evils of the Mafia while accepting substantial contributions from the Mafia, in other words.

  • mothra says:

    The very first sentence screamed satire to me. "We feel it is fair to point out…" Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

    Yeah, BB, it's not so much that Prince Alwaleed could make any sort of difference in the editorial decisions as Fox, but that Fox has positioned itself as the anti-Muslim network. They devote a number of hours to shows in which Islam is routinely abused and reviled. Hell–they have Sarah Palin on daily blathering awful shit about Islam. But they'll happily take money from a Muslim to fund their daily operations…

    Even more hilarious that Fox owns a 10% stake in Rotana. I suppose it is the Arab world's answer to Fox, in some ways, so it makes perfect sense.

  • acer says:

    @bb,
    It's the hypocrisy. One hand throws red meat to one-eyed teabag zealots, the other aids and comforts their sworn enemies. I'm not surprised at Murdoch – he's about his money. But the Fox audience is, by any standard, laughably credulous.

  • bb in GA says:

    bug:

    I asked a reasonable (to me) question and got a hostile and irrational answer. The 7% makes it 51% huh..what…shut up tool (rudely)

    Oh well…

    Peace & Love y'all

    //bb

  • Bugboy says:

    Seriously, bb, you are being intellectually dishonest if you think the only way someone has influence over a company (or its largest stock holder Rupert Murdock, with whom he meets) is by owning majority stock in the company.

    Besides, this is not about influencing day to day operations as you attempt to rationalize in order to minimize how bad this looks for Fox viewers. I'm not going to school you on this any more if you refuse to see it. This is classic Murdock, getting both hands to thumbwrestle with each other. Tool.

  • Liebchen says:

    @ bb in GA:

    Think for a second. If Prince bin Talal were to sell his 7% share, what would happen to News Corp. stock?

  • Kevin says:

    I suspect there are more of us right-wingers who like to read Ed's posts, but rarely comment because like bb, we know that an honest question or thoughtful position usually results in a rain of derision and attack rather than serious response.

    That said, let me offer a couple thoughts: Prince whats-his-name owns Fox because he thinks HE WILL MAKE MONEY from his investment, not because we wants to influence the content. And if he did want the influence of his minority-but-really-majority stake, he's doing a pretty rotten job of it, wouldn't you say? And by the way, owning stock doesn't mean he is funding the operations of the company or making "contributions" to it. Unless he bought new stock directly from the company, Fox never sees a dime of "his money".

    You're not necessarily a tool or dishonest if you think differently.

  • daphne says:

    the 4th comment – in which I rather obviously noted the satire – is mine. The 9th – acknowledging the satire – is Ed's, who wrote the post. Just whom do you mean by "people"?

  • beau says:

    Ah, sheesh…

    @Kevin – The problem is that bb's position is not at all thoughtful. For it to be thoughtful, it would have required.. um… thought.

    The funny here comes from the glaring, obvious, taking-up-all-the-fucking-air-in-here fact that (like Bush, Cheney and the gang) Faux News is very happy to whip up anti-Arab/Saudi/Muslim/Mid. East Oil sentiment ("they're trying to run / ruin our country!!!!!1!!") at home WHILE SIMILTANEOUSLY BEING IN BED WITH SAUDI BAZILLIONARES. The contempt shown for their audience is quite literally breath-taking.

    Shareholder control over content IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE.
    SHAREHOLDER CONTENT CONTROL? NOT THE ISSUE.
    HERE, THERE IS NO ISSUE WITH SHAREHOLDER CONTENT CONTROL.*

    Hopefully, I have included enough poor grammar, spelling errors and punc-tourette's-tion for this to be palatable to y'all.

    You're welcome.

    *This is an Australian film reference. Sorry.

  • waldo says:

    Had me going for a while….Murdoch is capable of anything… and in the land of Glenn Beck, what irony is too severe?

  • bb in GA says:

    Liebchen:

    last sentence of my original response

    Kevin:

    thanks, but save your "breath" The abuse is the price of admission.

    //bb

  • jazzbumpa says:

    bb –

    Re: your original response.

    One question though: Aren't most of the pundits on FNN taking a negative view of the mosque project? How does that benefit the Prince's assumed default position?

    1) Yes, they are.

    2) It doesn't, if you mean that as a Muslim his default position would be pro this mosque or pro-Islam in general. And it doesn't matter that it doesn't. Islam is irrelevant to his interest in FNN, which might be for investment purposes, or because he likes to hobnob with Murdoch, or for some nefarious reason that we will never know. They are both rich bastards who have contempt for the small people they mislead and manipulate. Did you know that Saudi citizens are the PROPERTY of the royal family?

    And there is no reason to believe (what I have assumed to be) your assumed default position for the Prince is correct. Royal Saudis lead life styles that are wildly inconsistent with Islam. And they are careful to do their playing outside of the country. Greg Baer's book "SLEEPING WITH THE DEVIL offers a lot of insight into the Saudi royal family, their dicey relation with the U.S. govt. and their unique problems back home.

    Sorry if this was insufficiently abusive.

    Cheers!
    JzB

  • beau says:

    Abuse?

    I'll put my hand up for making fun, bb. Maybe I was even a bit of a dick about it. Bugboy was perhaps a little rude, but really…

    Abuse?

Comments are closed.