View Full Version : More On FOX Ties W Financiers Of Terrorism

Gayle in MD
10-26-2009, 08:17 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">4pmSaudi prince changes Fox's Paris riots coverageBuzz up!

Claire Cozens MediaGuardian, Monday 12 December 2005 08.41 GMT Article historyFox News was ordered to alter its coverage of the riots in France after a Saudi prince with shares in its parent company News Corporation complained to Rupert Murdoch.

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdul aziz Al-Saud told a conference in Dubai he had telephoned Mr Murdoch after seeing a strapline on the news channel describing the disturbances as "Muslim riots".

"I picked up the phone and called Murdoch and said that I was speaking not as a shareholder, but as a viewer of Fox. I said that these are not Muslim riots, they are riots," Campaign Middle East magazine quoted the prince as saying.

"He investigated the matter and called Fox and within half an hour it was changed from 'Muslim riots' to 'civil riots'."

The prince said his intervention had been an example of how Muslim people can change the portrayal of their religion in the western media - although few Fox viewers will have his contacts.

It is not the first time he has admitted to trying to influence Mr Murdoch's coverage of sensitive issues.

In a recent Financial Times interview the prince said he did not wish to "intrude" into the management of companies in which he holds shares.

But he said he did talk to Mr Murdoch and Richard Parsons, the chief executive of AOL Time Warner, about where he believed the media had got things wrong.

"My job is to open their eyes to things they may not have seen," he said.

Last month's rioting marked France's worst unrest since the student riots of May 1968. Thousands of cars were set alight following the death of two teenage boys who were allegedly being pursued by police

Murdoch, and FOX, paling around with financiers of Terrorism?

<span style="color: #000066">Taking over the net? </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Next Previous Blog home Murdoch is running a paid-content propaganda campaign to save media moguldomComments (17)
Buzz up!
Digg it
Barely a day passes in which a story doesn't emerge about Rupert Murdoch's determination to charge for content. If he isn't speaking about it himself, his senior executives are doing so.

The latest example, reported by Bobbie Johnson, saw News Corp's deputy chairman, Chase Carey, suggesting that Hulu, the hugely popular TV and video streaming site in the US, could start charging users.

He didn't say it would definitely do so. But even announcing that it might is part of a Murdochian script just now, a propaganda exercise to tell the world - and, most importantly, News Corp's partners and rivals - that paying for content is The Way Ahead.

He is, in effect, trying to spin us into the belief that the freedom of exchange exemplified by the internet is a bad thing. It makes it impossible for content-providers to profit from their content and thereby reduces the likelihood of those providers having enough revenue to provide more content.

Think about that for a moment. It is a classic example of both media mogul arrogance and desperation. It suggests that the current media corporations have a divine right to produce movies, TV programmes, music and journalism and, in so doing, to reproduce themselves. They must be preserved at all costs.

Will the public accept that? Are they convinced that what Murdoch (and the others) have to offer is so unique, of such high quality and impossible to do without that they will pay for it?

Hulu, an advertising-supported free-to-air site (not available in Britain), is popular precisely because it is free. Owned jointly by
News Corp's Fox division, Disney and NBC, it has built an audience since 2007 with shows such as House, The Simpsons and Lost.

It's a great site, but given that it's a catch-up service, providing second-run showings, it's extremely unlikely that too many people will wish to pay.

In justifying a possible subscription model, Carey says: "I think a free model is a very difficult way to capture the value of our content." That's an interesting phrase, coming straight from a commercial textbook: capturing value.

Similarly, Murdoch has spoken of the need to erect paywalls to overcome a "malfunctioning" business model. But the net is a functioning non-business model, of course, one of the major reasons for it being so loved by people.

No wonder that a survey by Lightspeed Research into the likelihood of people paying for newspaper-related content came up with such startling results. It found that 91% of its respondents "would never pay" for online news and 90% wouldn't pay for analysis.

I accept that people are bound to say that when the question is hypothetical, so there would be defectors from the purist position should they be required to pay.

But Murdoch, and those media corporations he is trying to persuade to join his paid content crusade, are going to get a nasty surprise.

Despite his success with BSkyB and pay-TV, there is no parallel with content on the internet.

<span style="color: #000066"> Murdoch Using Republican Tactics?</span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">New twist to Murdoch-Berlusconi feudComments

The feud between Rupert Murdoch and Italy's prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, took another turn yesterday.

Murdoch's News Corporation announced that its Italian satellite pay-television division, Sky Italia, had filed a lawsuit against two of Berlusconi's media companies for anti-competitive practices.

It is suing RTI, the company that operates the TV channels of Berlusconi's Mediaset media empire, and Publitalia, Mediaset's advertising division, for refusing to accept advertising from Sky Italia.

News Corp said it was taking the legal action "for violation of antitrust rules under article 82 of the European Treaty and for unfair competition".

In June, Berlusconi accused Murdoch of mounting a personal attack through The Times because the paper carried reports
and comment about relationship between Berlusconi and an 18-year-old model.

At the time it was suggested that Berlusconi's greatest concern was not the content of the articles but Murdoch's business ambitions in Italy. Both men are competing for control of the country's pay-TV market.

The feud can be traced back to December when Murdoch complained about a decision by Berlusconi's government to double the VAT levied on Sky Italia to 20%.

Sources: Financial Times/New York Times


10-26-2009, 08:39 AM
You're just mad cuz he has a better boat than you do.


Gayle in MD
10-26-2009, 11:00 AM
In my income bracket, when it comes to boats, less is more, until I sell my home, and live on board full time.

Do you have a boat?

10-26-2009, 11:10 AM
Does it give you a thrill to find some raghead that agrees with you? Granted that there are still a few who haven't yet seen the light and switched over to Fox but that's mostly cause they don't pay attention or are too brainwashed.

10-26-2009, 12:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In my income bracket, when it comes to boats, less is more, until I sell my home, and live on board full time.

Do you have a boat? </div></div>

20' Boston Whaler. Tough little fishing boat. Good for the bays and near shore. It's always safety first with me on the water. Whaler has one they sawed in half and they drive the back half around at the boat shows to prove it won't sink.