Comments on: Fox News… Fair and Balanced or Fair and Bought?

By: lindenen

lindenen — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 01:34:09 +0000

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

By: Pat Patterson

Pat Patterson — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 23:36:28 +0000

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

By: Buddy Larsen

Buddy Larsen — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 22:08:20 +0000

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

By: Buddy Larsen

Buddy Larsen — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 21:27:02 +0000

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.

By: Buddy Larsen

Buddy Larsen — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 21:20:52 +0000

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

By: Sligobob

Sligobob — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 20:22:32 +0000

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.

By: Piglet

Piglet — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 20:16:43 +0000

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

By: exmaple

exmaple — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 19:21:09 +0000

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

By: dick

dick — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 19:07:21 +0000

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.

By: Buddy Larsen

Buddy Larsen — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 18:32:20 +0000

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.