The #2 share holder in Fox News' parent company is

[B_VinylBoy]

FOX News and MSNBC (both on the opposite ends of the spectrum of viewpoints) need and feed off controversy like the GZ Mosque. Smart, rich Muslims know that as well and 'buy' into it. Simple business.

Actually MSNBC has a daily conservative morning show that airs for three hours at a time, plus several of the evening shows also feature a number of Republican strategists and pundits from time to time. Faux does very little to almost NONE of this. And as for tonight's shows, the first stories from Olbermann and Maddow had nothing to do with the "GZ mosque". Olbermann talked about Boehner and his positioning by Republicans to set him up to become the "face" for the GOP, while Maddow talked about the crusade launched against abortion in Kentucky with the leaking of private information of over 200 women who had them. No Muslim propaganda... no mention of mosque or any mention of New York for that matter. And Olbermann does his show in Manhattan, right across the street from Faux News.

But thank you for proving that you actually DON'T watch MSNBC. Anything else you'd like to tell falsehoods about?

 

[maxcok]

FOX News and MSNBC (both on the opposite ends of the spectrum of viewpoints) need and feed off controversy like the GZ Mosque. Smart, rich Muslims know that as well and 'buy' into it. Simple business.

I'm sure from your "viewpoint" MSNBC probably does look like the opposite end of the spectrum,
but it's really kinda in the middle. It's just that you can't see very far.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

A correction on my last post... Maddow was talking about issues regarding the abortion debate that have arose in Virginia that resemble what happened a few years ago in Kansas and not in Kentucky. Wrong state that begins with "K". Oopsie! :redface:

 

[maxcok]

^ Either way, we're not in Kansas anymore. :smile:

 

[DeepDish]

Interesting - Rupert Murdoch's publishing company published Iman Rauf's book:

Murdoch published Imam Rauf's book on Islam and America
Daily Kos: State of the Nation

 

[DeepDish]

FOX News and MSNBC (both on the opposite ends of the spectrum of viewpoints) need and feed off controversy like the GZ Mosque.

That's really a false equivalency. MSNBC can usually survive a fact check and if they get something wrong they correct it, FOX simply doesn't fare well when it comes to facts. Especially in their opinion shows.

And if you were to actually watch MSNBC all day you would discover that the news coverage runs to the center, perhaps tending to the right. As maxcok said earlier.

They have basically 3 or so hours of "Liberal Programs" out of 24hrs. (Whose hosts have done their fair share of ripping Obama a new asshole now and again.) And as Vinylboy pointed out, there is a 3 hour long program in the morning that is "Conservative"

Republican strategists and politicians are interviewed all the time during the news programming. It is a good outlet for Republicans to get their views out, they certainly seem to be quite happy to come on.

You are right though, these companies are driven by profits rather than pure journalism. News is the filler between ads. Their formula is

Controversy = Ratings = We can charge more for AD time = $$$$$

 

[DeepDish]

The heart of my question is about Fox's failure to disclose that the man they accused of funding radical islamic groups is making a direct profit off of Fox News'/NewsCorp's revenue. Does that bother any Fox viewers? I think the truth is complicated, some people don't care because Fox News can do no wrong in their book, another possibility is that bin Talal may be moderate and he has been unfairly portrayed to shape a story's narrative. So, what do you think? Is it a problem for Fox viewer's that some of this man's income comes from this company?

It is a good question. I know you are wanting responses from Fox viewers. I do watch Fox now and again, and I know lots and lots of Fox viewers, so I am gonna theorize a little.

Apparently when Fox accuses Alwaleed Bin Talal of funding "radical groups", they do not say his name or show his photograph. So he is presented as a nameless bad guy. So Fox viewers are not give the opportunity to confront the facts of the Prince's relationship with Murdoch and Newscorp.

Very few outlets are actually covering this connection, so it would be difficult for Fox viewers to come across the places that do.

Additionally the Fox viewers who I know/am friendly with/am related to typically WILL NOT WATCH anything but Fox. If they get news from the internet, it is typically from right wing blogs.

So for the most part they are sheltered from the facts of the business relationship between Alwaleed Bin Talal and Rupert Murdoch. So they don't have to deal with the disconnect with what Fox is saying about the Prince and the actual relationship.

 

[B_lrgeggs]

Well, just goes to show you that business can make strange bedfellows.
I don't live in Manhatten, I see this pretty much as a zoning issue.
And it's really those people living in the area who should
decide. What I am surprised that I haven't
heard is the problem how "homophobic" major
religions like the Islamic faith is. Are there any
Gay guys/gals that would like to chime in on that.
Thanks

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Well, just goes to show you that business can make strange bedfellows.
I don't live in Manhatten, I see this pretty much as a zoning issue.
And it's really those people living in the area who should
decide. What I am surprised that I haven't
heard is the problem how "homophobic" major
religions like the Islamic faith is. Are there any
Gay guys/gals that would like to chime in on that.
Thanks

Every religion has a huge base of homophobia. No one should be trying to justify the civility of any group, using this as the angle, through the narrow-minded lens of religion.

The last few times I ever had to deal with a straight man calling me a faggot or wanting to beat me for holding the hand of another guy, neither of them were Muslim or followers of Islam. At least I don't remember hearing anyone running at me screaming Jihad or praying to Allah when they were calling me and my beau a "cocksucker". Something for you to ponder.

 

[Bbucko]

Well, just goes to show you that business can make strange bedfellows.

In order to believe that, you'd need to make an assertion that Alwaleed bin Talal and Murdoch have some over-reaching common interest. AbT has absolutely no interest in being painted as the bad guy here or anywhere. The dictum of there being "no bad publicity" only goes so far.

I don't live in Manhatten, I see this pretty much as a zoning issue.
And it's really those people living in the area who should
decide.

Civil rights should never be put to a popular vote: Prop 8 is just the latest and best example of how such things are fundamentally un-American and morally wrong. The counterbalance to the will of the majority is always the protection of the rights of the minority, though it took over 100 years before that really got all worked out in the US.

What I am surprised that I haven't
heard is the problem how "homophobic" major
religions like the Islamic faith is. Are there any
Gay guys/gals that would like to chime in on that.
Thanks

Of all the odd and uninformed statements you've made on this board, this last one is the least rational or explicable. Virtually every time there's a thread started regarding religion (or atheism, for that matter), homophobia and other forms of intolerance are inevitably at the core root of the discussion.

There are too many members here sympathetic to the cause of full civil equality to LGBTs (and women, for that matter) for it to be otherwise. Do you read anything posted at LPSG aside from Fictional Stories and Penis Enlargement?

 

[faceking]

Interesting - Rupert Murdoch's publishing company published Iman Rauf's book:

Murdoch published Imam Rauf's book on Islam and America
Daily Kos: State of the Nation

and???????????????

 

[DeepDish]

and???????????????

Well it is pretty simple what the "and" is.

Murdoch published his book which is about moderate Islam. And Fox news makes up stuff about Rauf to make him seem "radical".

Murdoch owns both companies.

He publishes Rauf's book about moderate islam, and then his news network distorts Rauf's moderate views.

There is a contradiction there. (that's your and?????)

Why does Murdoch allow Fox to trash one of his authors, a person who worked with the Bush administration on US/Moderate Muslim nation outreach?

My theory:

Either Murdoch is psychotic or

Fox is following/shaping the narrative that the Republican strategists have worked out to get their base out in 2010.

This is not the first time that facts has taken a back seat to party politics on Fox. Because I really don't believe Murdoch is psychotic.

 

[deleted15807]

This is not the first time that facts has taken a back seat to party politics on Fox. Because I really don't believe Murdoch is psychotic.

It's all a pattern:

The Fox Cycle: From bogus right-wing attack to mainstream news | Media Matters for America

 

[maxcok]

Why does Murdoch allow Fox to trash one of his authors, a person who worked with the Bush administration on US/Moderate Muslim nation outreach?

My theory:

Either Murdoch is psychotic or

Fox is following/shaping the narrative that the Republican strategists have worked out to get their base out in 2010.

This is not the first time that facts has taken a back seat to party politics on Fox. Because I really don't believe Murdoch is psychotic.

Controversy = votes = ratings, book sales, newspaper sales, etc.

It's a one stop propaganda/promotion/money machine.

He serves up red meat to the ignorant masses while pushing his own economic/political agenda.

He feeds right-wing politicians and guarantees they pass laws favorable to his corporate empire.

He's the ultimate capitalist, devoid of morals or ethics, and he's laughing all the way to the bank.

Yeah, he's psychotic all right. Psychotic 'like a Fox'. hmmm . . . .

 

[JustAsking]

Why is everyone always ready to propose some complicated conspiracy theory when corporate greed is a perfectly good explanation for stuff like this. Here is what we already know:

1) Successfull companies and CEOs are greedy exploitative capitalists that don't let ideology get in the way.

2) Rupert Murdoch is highly successful.

No need for conspiracy theories.

 

[Pendlum]

Shhh, quit making too much sense, you might knock the cosmos out of order.

 

[maxcok]

Why is everyone always ready to propose some complicated conspiracy theory when corporate greed is a perfectly good explanation for stuff like this.

I'm not sure what you mean by "complicated conspiracy theories" or who's proposing them.

 

[Dave NoCal]

VinylBoy wrote to Big E:
It's not a mosque. Still smokin' that extreme conservacrack I see.

I see some real potential comedy here:

(Big announcer voice)

ARE YOU TORTURED WITH INSIGHT AND COMPASSION?
TRY XtremeConservaCrack!
DOES BEING EXPECTED TO DISCUSS USING FACTS AND LOGIC DRIVE YOU BATSHIT CRAZY?
USE ENOUGH XtremeConservaCrack AND NO WILL EXPECT IT OF YOU EVER AGAIN!!!!
DOES PEOPLE TALKING PLEASANTLY WITH YOU MAKE YOU WANT TO PUKE?
ExtremeConservaCrack WILL DRIVE THOSE PEOPLE AWAY... FOR SURE... PROBABLY PERMANENTLY!

ExtremeConservaCrack IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BE RECOGNIZED FOR THEIR COMMAND OF FACTS, HISTORY, AND CONTEXT. ExtremeConservaCrack IS RECOMMENDED FOR PEOPLE ASPIRING TO BECOME FELLOWS AT THE AMERICAN INTERPRISE INSTITUTE. USE ENOUGH OF IT AND YOU TOO COULD BE EXPECTED TO ONLY SEEM TO MAKE SENSE TO OTHER ExtreConservaCrackheads.

I know, it needs more work. I'm not very funny.

Dave

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I got a few giggles out of it, Dave NoCal. :wink:

 

[B_OtterJoq]

and???????????????

You're serious?

Really?

Damn, you're thick. And not in the good way.