It's not "nitpicky technical" to say that a supposed "news" report gets the name of the company flat dead wrong. It's as inexcusable as saying, for example, "Joe Blow bought a share of MSNBC" when the reality is that he either bought Microsoft stock or General Electric stock.
That piece shows lazy thinking from the reporter to the editor all the way up to the publisher, and reduces its source, IMHO, to blog level.
Thanks for info and feedback. It looks like Murdoch has a financial "ally" in the Saudi Prince , re: staving off a hostile takeover from Liberty Media----or at least that's the way they "make sense of it" to us peons who can't afford ONE BILLION DOLLARS worth of investment. I still believe there's the essential factor of creating good PR lurking somewhere in the background---and as pro- WOT and anti-Islamic terrorist as FOX may purport to be, so also does the official voice of Saudi Arabia, though we know just how hypocritical that is. So I expect virtually NO direct criticism from FOX or its star commentators against Saudi Arabia, though O'Reilly probably already has blasted the "kingdom".