Skip to comments.
Saudi Prince Buys Large Share of Fox News
Arutz Sheva ^
| 9/25/05
| Arutz Sheva
Posted on 09/25/2005 8:40:00 AM PDT by Dallas59
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
There goes the neighborhood...
Did search...nothing.
1
posted on
09/25/2005 8:40:01 AM PDT
by
Dallas59
To: Dallas59
To: Dallas59
From Little Green Footballs
3
posted on
09/25/2005 8:40:52 AM PDT
by
Dallas59
(“You love life, while we love death.” - Al-Qaeda / Democratic Party)
To: Dallas59
I thought he already owned shares in FOX. I thought we discovered that back in September of 01.
4
posted on
09/25/2005 8:41:35 AM PDT
by
McGavin999
(We're a First World Country with a Third World Press (Except for Hume & Garrett ))
To: McGavin999
5
posted on
09/25/2005 8:42:00 AM PDT
by
Dallas59
(“You love life, while we love death.” - Al-Qaeda / Democratic Party)
To: Dallas59
No big deal. Fox News, aka the Missing White Girl Network, went downhill a long time ago. Anyone watching it for any worthwhile news anymore is certainly wasting his/her time.
6
posted on
09/25/2005 8:42:12 AM PDT
by
xrp
(Executing assigned posting duties FLAWLESSLY, zero mistakes)
To: Dallas59
7
posted on
09/25/2005 8:42:24 AM PDT
by
Azzurri
To: Dallas59
Since when is 5% considered a large share of anything?
8
posted on
09/25/2005 8:42:52 AM PDT
by
Peach
(South Carolina is praying for our Gulf coast citizens.)
To: Dallas59
Al-Waleed, the nephew of the late Saudi King Fahd, was in the news when he visited the World Trade Center's remains just after the September 11th attacks and offered then-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani a $10 million check for relief efforts. Al-Waleed then released a statement blaming US foreign policy and support for Israel for the attacks. FOX needs to be reminded that all their licenses are in jeopardy if they allow this clown any voice in their coverage.
So9
To: xrp
Well put. Fox's sensational coverage of kidnapped wealthy white girls and the trials of wealthy white girls (Michael Jackson) has jumped the shark.
10
posted on
09/25/2005 8:44:53 AM PDT
by
Lunatic Fringe
(North Texas Solutions http://ntxsolutions.com)
To: Dallas59
11
posted on
09/25/2005 8:45:18 AM PDT
by
Alouette
(Militant Neocon Pundit)
To: Peach
5% is a large share in stocks especially when there are multiple stock holders.
12
posted on
09/25/2005 8:45:38 AM PDT
by
indcons
(How about rooting for our side for a change, you liberal morons?)
To: Dallas59
Fox sux. I cant take the 3 idiots in the morning. Col. Hunt, Hume and Cavuto are the only guys worth watching. Besides, with Free Republic who needs another news source?
To: Dallas59
Probably only Saudis could afford to pay Price Bill O'Reilly's salary. It ain't cheap to have Lord Bill "lookin' out for the folks" and we poor dumb slobs should be grateful. Yeah, sure.
To: Dallas59
What is "The Fox corporation"? There is no "Fox corporation".
15
posted on
09/25/2005 8:46:56 AM PDT
by
AmishDude
(Join the AmishDude fan club: "Great point." -- AliVertias; ":-) Very clever" -- MJY1288)
To: Dallas59
Whether this will have any actual impact or not, the perception is there that it might compromise their coverage. Not good.
16
posted on
09/25/2005 8:47:07 AM PDT
by
KJC1
To: Peach
Since when is 5% considered a large share of anything? 5% is the point at which ownership has to be reported in publicly held corporations.
In many corporations it will make someone the largest shareholder and can give him effective control of the board of directors.
It shouldn't give any such leverage i the case of FOX because teh Murdochs own such a large share.
So9
To: Dallas59
I think he owns a "large share" in the The Times, Netscape, The Sun, Motorola and Sky News.
18
posted on
09/25/2005 8:47:32 AM PDT
by
Dallas59
(“You love life, while we love death.” - Al-Qaeda / Democratic Party)
To: Dallas59
Duh...this would be "news" if the Saudi's didn't already own about 5% of every profitable big company in the USA.
19
posted on
09/25/2005 8:48:02 AM PDT
by
ShowMeMom
(America: The home of the free because of the brave.)
To: AmishDude
What is "The Fox corporation"? There is no "Fox corporation" I think you are right, Murdoch's conglomerate is officially called News Corporation or something like that.
20
posted on
09/25/2005 8:48:41 AM PDT
by
Dane
( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson