40 Comments

1. Terrye:

I guess this means Ted Turner will have to stop accusing Murdoch of being a Bush stooge.

I don’t know if this is really any big deal or not. The Saudis own Four Seasons don’t they?

I suppose it would depend on how many shares they own. I wonder what the excuse was for all the other media outlets.

Dec 5, 2005 - 5:03 pm 2. ras:

I don’t think anyone ever really thought Murdoch did Fox News as an alternative cuz he really loved the truth or anything. He just saw an underserviced market niche and moved to fill it.

I am surprised that more bloggers have not publicized the Saudi purchase of Fox shares. If not for you, Roger, I don’t think I would have heard about it at all.

If more would join you in the publicity, then Mr. Murdoch would have to choose between following Saudi orders or making money. Absent such publicity, he will of course happily do both, as this latest story illustrates.

Dec 5, 2005 - 5:19 pm 3. vnjagvet:

Does anyone know what the percentage of Fox stock the good sheik owns?

Any evidence that this guys bragging claims are anything other than — bragging?

Why is Fox News the only place where numerous commentators made the point early and often that the rioters were Islamic “yutes”?

Sounds like a MEO hit job to me.

If true, though, it would trouble me.

Dec 5, 2005 - 5:31 pm 4. Terrye:

vnj:

I have no source for this but I heard awhile back that some shiek had purchased some shares as part of a portfolio and had sold most of them.

But I really do not know. I suppose there must be a way to find out.

I wonder about CNN and the others as well.

Dec 5, 2005 - 5:38 pm 5. Buddy Larsen:

Bin Talal is a huge booster of USA mkts–he’s interviewed pretty often for his mkt analysis on everything from foreign exchange, trade, OPEC, and the internals of the many blue chip old-line USA stocks he plays. He’s Western-looking, sounding, and a friend of this country all the way. He’s from the ‘good’ side of the family.

As far as the incident, I don’t know what to think. I just wanted to say that this is no exotic Desert shadow, he’s more like Donald Trump.

And, crucially, anybody who wants a little whiff of patriotism in their GWoT TV news has only Fox.

Dec 5, 2005 - 5:54 pm 6. Syl:

I’m with Buddy.

Dec 5, 2005 - 6:40 pm 7. Lastango:

VNJ and TERR, a while back we we blogged on Saudi participation in FOX. Check our links for more details.

Dec 5, 2005 - 7:07 pm 8. Lastango:

Well, that link worked in the preview page. Let’s try it naked.

http://www.dailypundit.com/newarchives/004846.php

Dec 5, 2005 - 7:10 pm 9. Silicon valley Jim:

It may not be possible to know exactly how big the prince’s stake in NewsCorp is, since, as far as I can tell, it’s privately held. Lastango’s link, however, links to a piece by Frank Gaffney which reports that the Murdoch family owns 30% of NewsCorp’s voting shares, and that the prince is now the fourth-largest owner, so, assuming that voting shares corresponds to ownership, the prince can own no more than about 23% of NewsCorp, and probably less. I have no idea of how much influence an owner of that many shares wields. He most probably would have a seat on the board of directors (himself or somebody whom he nominates). Beyond that, I don’t know. Here’s a link to Frank Gaffney’s piece: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19652

and let me offer thanks to Lastango and the rest of the folks at the DailyPundit site for providing the link to the information.

Dec 5, 2005 - 7:35 pm 10. Piglet:

Buddy, I’m usually with you, but in this case not. You write: “Bin Talal is a huge booster of USA mkts–he’s interviewed pretty often for his mkt analysis on everything from foreign exchange, trade, OPEC, and the internals of the many blue chip old-line USA stocks he plays. He’s Western-looking, sounding, and a friend of this country all the way. He’s from the ‘good’ side of the family.”

We are talking about Saudi Arabia, the exporter of the poisonous Wahhabi version of Islam. Being from the ‘good’ side of the House of Saud means what? I recognize that we need the Saudi oil and so we are forced to remain on good terms with the House of Saud, and that there are the Western-ish types who are preferable to the hardliners, but let’s be honest with ourselves. It’s a deal with the devil. If we didn’t need the oil, we wouldn’t have to engage in this hypocritical farce. Never forget what kind of nation we are dealing with (http://www.malharbi.com/en/home.html). I am a full supporter of George Bush’s actions in the Middle East, but it makes me ill when I read about his father socializing with the “good Saudis”. I console myself with the belief that it is his father, not him. But that’s just because I have no choice. No one else is doing anything to fight civilization’s greatest threat. But I don’t have to rationalize away Al Walid’s ownership of a percentage of Fox News with the fantastical thinking that he is a good guy.

Dec 5, 2005 - 7:54 pm 11. Piglet:

Sorry, I think that link is bad. Here’s one that works, I hope. It’s a site about the deeply distressing case of Mohammed Al Harbi.

http://www.malharbi.com/en/home.html

Dec 5, 2005 - 7:59 pm 12. Kevin Peters:

Roger:

The constant refrain of ‘the jews control the media” is a old myth that is less and less valid every day. The influence of Saudi money at the universities, think tanks, and now media outlets is far more influential then the legendary Israeli lobby. Saudi money has been flooding the cultural and intellectual circles of America for years and Murdoch is a capitalist first, fighter for democracy second. Just look how he bows down to China(he is not alone in this) and if this story is true the fact that the Sauds can change content with a single phone call is deeply troubling.

It is very hard for the western mind to grasp the double speak tendencies of the Sauds. They present themselves as sophisticated westerners to the west and dedicated wahabi’s to the Muslim world and it is a gamble to bank on one being the truth and one being a front. They may vacation in the west and act like yuppy materialists but they live in Saudi Arabia and that is where their hearts are. There is nothing we can do but I hope PJM monitors Fox’s middle east coverage with a eagle eye from now on.

Dec 5, 2005 - 9:04 pm 13. Pierre Legrand:

Well Roger when it is the Islamic Fundementalists controlling the show it isn’t called controlling, its called suggestions. Only men of character like Guiliani can withstand the allure of money. When he rejected the offer of that Arab Nutjob right after 9/11 he made me proud. Course every other Republican in sight is on the payroll of the Saudis, especially nearly the entire administration of GWB’s dad’s administration. Frank Gaffney where are you?

The obscenity of Republicans arguing the case of slaveholders is rich with irony. Lincoln must be twirling in his grave.

Pierre Legrand

Dec 5, 2005 - 9:31 pm 14. bb:

I read recently a piece that predicted that Murdoch could change Fox’s bias in the coming years for monetary reasons, the argument being that his devotion is simply to the dollar and not ideology.

I don’t know if that is true but the right-wing slant of Fox News is what put them on top. I imagine that Murdoch simply felt that removing “muslim” from the title didn’t mean much in the end.

It will be interesting to watch in the coming months.

BTW, i don’t mention Fox’s bias as a criticism. The rest are so far to the left that it’s a bad joke. The good joke at Fox is that they are upfront about their slant and stick it in the rest of the media’s eyes with the “Fair and Balanced” slogan.

Dec 5, 2005 - 11:40 pm 15. Davod:

Fox has already changed its reporting and editorial slant. I have noticed this for at least six months.

Look at who its commentators are. They put up tough Dems against no name Reps. There is very little hard hitting news.

Dec 6, 2005 - 4:22 am 16. ClericalGal:

We only have al-Walid’s word that he phoned Murdoch and the title of the report was changed. I think he is just trying to make himself important.

Also, Fox aired a report last weekend about the good things that are happening in Iraq. None of the MSM has done that. Fair and bought? I don’t think so.

Dec 6, 2005 - 4:34 am 17. Buddy Larsen:

I saw that report, clericalgal. It wasn’t a report so much as an entire show–was it an hour?–and it brought me to tears and cheers. The Iraqi 20-somethings on the stock mkt floor struggling with American 20-something argot, the couples in cafes rolling their eyes at fundie Islam, the PERSPECTIVE of size of change the kids kept talking about, from cold pervasive fear under the dictator to sloppy messy freedom now–was really breathtaking.

Piglet, Pierre, others–look, I’m no GOP Arabist, and I’ll go with you on the ‘look’ of our chiefs and KSA robes tete-a-tete-ing.

But two things: 1) we ‘ve GOT to understand that we are not going to win ag/ al Qaida unless we have some of the ‘other’ on our side–hell, we’re training the guys that were shooting at us before OIF took root. 2) the ‘good’ side of the 30,000-strong House of Saud is fighting al Qaida hammer-and-tong over the fricken oilfieelds. and we need to not undermine the enemy of our enemy.

Let’s get the wolf away from the door, and THEN sort out why the door is weak to begin with. This foundational examination doesn’t have to wait, but perhaps should be kept always in our minds next to the alternatives on BOTH ends of the issue. IMHO o’ course.

Dec 6, 2005 - 5:38 am 18. Buddy Larsen:

“oilfieelds”–a typo, not a sarcasm.

Dec 6, 2005 - 5:41 am 19. Buddy Larsen:

Remember, the influencing is going on in both directions–Murdoch may be nothing more that an exploiter of an unserved market–but he still provides Huime, Wallace, Krautmammer, O’Rielly, Hannity, and a dozen other saviors of my own personal allegiance to optimism viz the future of the USA.

And if he did KowTow to al Walid, then al Walid may’ve KowTowed to him, a few weeks ago, in the dropping of KSA sanctions ag/ doing biz with Israel. This is a stew. Nobody knows yet what it really tastes like. So be judicious with the salt.

Dec 6, 2005 - 5:55 am 20. Buddy Larsen:

(sigh) middle aged eyes, HUME and KRAUTHAMMER.

Dec 6, 2005 - 5:57 am 21. Buddy Larsen:

BTW, Sen. Carl Levin, as Dem chief of Senate Armed Services, would’ve gotten away scott-free with some terribly destructive lies wrt Bush statements in the OIF run-up, were it not for Chris Wallace, who just literally bull-dogged him into a near breakdown on-camera two weekends back.

Dec 6, 2005 - 6:12 am 22. Rick Ballard:

We’re supposed to accept al-Walid’s account without:

1. Verifying that the incident occurred.

2. Seeing an affirmation or denial from Fox News

3. Examining the denial on the basis of Fox’s ‘Standards and Practices’ (which, in the case of the NO looting, led to the studiously avoided mention of the fact that none of the looters appeared to be Swedes).

Unless someone at Fox has been approached and affirmed, denied or explained this (assuming that it did happen) then the ’story’ is in limbo – rank speculation based upon what is in part a stereotype.

Dec 6, 2005 - 6:37 am 23. Buddy Larsen:

Tony Snow, Brian Williams, Neil Cavoto…list goes on and on…imagine the tv newsworld without these guys…the horror…the horror….

Dec 6, 2005 - 6:58 am 24. Buddy Larsen:

WILSON–like the Beach Boy–not Williams–like that PC guy on one of the big 3. Sorry for the sloppy posting–temp outside has fallen below 60 and my head is froze.

Dec 6, 2005 - 7:05 am 25. scribe10:

This means that Saudi money is taking over.

There is a story in the JPost about saudi money radicalizing (read: teaching hatred) of non muslims in US mosques.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475689987&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

“Expert: Saudis have radicalized 80% of US mosques”

The moral of this story is that we are fighting the wrong war on terror. It’s the Saudi State (as well as Iran) that is the real enemy and we should be going after it.

Everything else is a side show.

Dec 6, 2005 - 9:22 am 26. Ron Wrght:

Expert: Saudis have radicalized 80% of US mosques

Roger,

That’s not all our friends at the House of Saud are doing.

See this new post by Jihad Watch:

*****

HT Jihad Watch

OK, who let the cat out of the bag?

Ron

**

December 06, 2005

Expert: Saudis have radicalized 80% of US mosques

I’m glad the Jerusalem Post is noting this, but it is a bit late. I have only been saying this publicly for about three and a half years, and it has only been six years since Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani testified the same thing before a State Department Open Forum.

Mainstream US Muslim organizations are heavily influenced by Saudi-funded extremists, according to Yehudit Barsky, an expert on terrorism at the American Jewish Committee.

Worse still, Barsky told The Jerusalem Post last week, these “extremist organizations continue to claim the mantle of leadership” over American Islam.

The power of the extremist Wahhabi form of Islam in the United States was created with generous Saudi financing of American Muslim communities over the past few decades. Over 80 percent of the mosques in the United States “have been radicalized by Saudi money and influence,” Barsky said.

[...]

Read More

Link

Dec 6, 2005 - 9:22 am 27. Buddy Larsen:

With any luck, the fact that American culture is strongly attractive to the target age group–da yute–will backfire this noxious aggression and truly–as Wahabs fear–corrupt Wahabism. The Lord works in mysterious ways–and deviltry oft attracts the unintended consequence.

Dec 6, 2005 - 10:16 am 28. Piglet:

Buddy, sure American/Western culture is attractive to many Middle Eastern youth, but it’s also deeply frightening and ultimately alienating to many of them as well. Just look at Europe, look at who the 911 bombers were. Look at what is happening inside our own prisons… So western ways corrupt Wahhabism – but not always in the way we would like. For some, it radicalizes them even further and spurs them to violence. And as for some sort of reciprocal arrangement between Murdoch and the Sauds as you speculate, sorry but there is no excuse for that. Our government makes those sorts of deals, because we need oil and we need intelligence, etc. But why on earth should a media company engage in that? They are not authorized to act on behalf of our country.

Dec 6, 2005 - 10:47 am 29. Piglet:

And the fact that Fox News is better than its competitors is irrelevant to that. It doesn’t mean it should be exempt from scrutiny.

Dec 6, 2005 - 10:50 am 30. Buddy Larsen:

Well said, piglet. I won’t split hairs just to try to wear you down, but we aren’t actually discussing any sort of official diplomacy here, just two bigshots in the commercial arena whose $$$ gives them clout which spills over into policy as a matter of realpolitik. And I agree with the matter of irrelevancy in your PS post. I’m just still carrying a load of incredulance at how badly conservatism shot itself in the foot re the Miers SCOTUS imbroglio. I hate to see anybody even begin to entertain the notion of tossing the baby out with the bathwater.

Dec 6, 2005 - 11:21 am 31. Buddy Larsen:

And you’re right–western youth pop culture is probably driving the whole attack on the west. I’m not being sarcastic, either–the sociology of an Arab shephard watching his kids watch MTV is powerful. He can never offer them the glitter, and he sees his falling stature in the eyes of his wife and children. So, he’ll listen to the Wahabs, won’t he?

It’s really a testament to our effort that we’ve overcome such a current as well as we have.

I think the explanation is in our openness. We offer low entry barriers–not physically so much as psychologically–and this HAS to be a huge problem for the Wahabs. Good.

Dec 6, 2005 - 11:32 am 32. dick:

Seems to me that we really do not know whether the change was as a result of the sheikh or not. It could really have been just to make the report more accurate. Unless and until someone can prove that there is a direct connection between the sheikh’s call and the change to the report and that there was no other possible cause for the change, then there is no reason to assume that the sheikh was solely and completely responsible for the change. There is too much chance for coincidence in this case without complete chain of evidence proof. I think Fox News is deserving of that option.

Dec 6, 2005 - 12:07 pm 33. exmaple:

Fox News? Talal has long held a substantial interest in AOL-Time Warner, which controls CNN, etc.

Dec 6, 2005 - 12:21 pm 34. Piglet:

I’m back with you on that, Buddy. I totally agree.

Dec 6, 2005 - 1:16 pm 35. Sligobob:

In September, the Wall Street Journal reported that Talal purchased (without any OK from Murdoch) an approximately 5.5% voting stake in News Corp. The transaction was valued at approximately $970 million. Talal sold his approximately 3.3 percent nonvoting stake in News Corp. to fund a portion of the purchase.

The WSJ implies that he did so as a favor to Murdoch, who has been attempting to fend off John Malone’s Liberty Media Corp., which took an 18 percent voting stake in News Corp in the Fall of 2004. Malone has stated his intention to hold onto the 18 percent despite Murdoch’s friendly request that he voluntarily reduce his stake.

Talal is now the fourth largest holder of voting shares in News Corp., behind Rupert (at approximately 30 percent), Liberty (at approximately 18 percent), and Fidelity Management and research (at approximately 5.8 percent).

Talal stated that Murdoch has his verbal proxy on big moves, but not a formal proxy. Talal thus has some sway over Murdoch as he can calmly threaten to sell his stake, with the likely buyer to be a predatory Malone. Malone has not completely given up the idea that he should have a US distribution arm. DIRECTV could give him that, despite the limitations of direct broadcast satellite vis a vis cable multiple system operators, such as Comcast, Time Warner et al, which can offer a triple or quadruple play of services.

In addition, Talal owns significant holdings in Arabic television and radio content and is seeking Murdoch magic to make it a big player in the ME, and to achieve distribution on DIRECTV in the US.

So, much is at stake for Murdoch with respect to Talal’s disposition of his stake in the company.

Finally, in today’s Gulf Times, the good prince is quoted as stating that a big mistake the US has made in Iraq, which he describes as a fiasco (hey, at least he didn’t say quagmire!), is that it has allowed too many television channels and newspapers to flourish in Iraq, a “luxury” that he says Iraqis don’t need right now.

Dec 6, 2005 - 1:22 pm 36. Buddy Larsen:

Among other things in that post is a reminder to yours truly to keep it zipped until he knows more.

Dec 6, 2005 - 2:20 pm 37. Buddy Larsen:

just dawned–the KSA deal with world tech patent giant Israel…could there be some nascent future economic competition between Iraq and KSA? Is that possibly behind the perplexing Talal statement? A little flogging & positioning? if so–and it seems likely–this is very much ‘western-style’ activity.

Dec 6, 2005 - 2:27 pm 38. Buddy Larsen:

…a clue that victory is at hand, and post-war deal-making is next up?

Dec 6, 2005 - 3:08 pm 39. Pat Patterson:

Did anybody check the FOX tape to see if such a change actually occurred?

Dec 6, 2005 - 4:36 pm 40. lindenen:

Perhaps we need to pass a law forbidding foreigners from purchasing stock in American media organizations?

Dec 6, 2005 - 6:34 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: