Fox News Channel takes out ad condemning CNN for buying al-Qaida videotapes

sfgate.com ^ | 22 August 2002 | DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer

[Darlin']

Escalating an already keen cable news competition, Fox News Channel took out a newspaper ad on Thursday criticizing CNN for changing its story on paying for al-Qaida videotape.

"CNN ... Caught?" said the full-page ad in Thursday's edition of The New York Times.

[Darlin']

FOFLOL. I love Roger Ailes.

[rintense]

A CNN sucks PING!

[Darlin']

Whoops ! My bad. I did a search before posting but the article didn't show up. Sorry. Here is the link to an earlier thread... Click

[xzins]

CNN amanpour was aiding and abetting the enemy....in more ways than one. they are despicable.

[AM2000]

CNN shouldn't have lied about not paying for them. Having said that, so what if they did? You can buy almost anything for enough money in that part of the world.. why shouldn't Western reporters (in this case, from CNN) take advantage of that?

[Darlin']

FOFLOL. Yeah, they do. FOFLOL

[Darlin']

CNN still hasn't learned their lesson. Guess Ailes has to spank them good one more time.

[Darlin']

Yuck.... just seeing that vile woman's name makes my skin itch.

[Steely Tom]

Yeah, but turnabout is now fair play. Fox better be on its best behavior from now on.

(steely)

[ChadGore]

So this 30k goes to who? They guy in Afghanistan who made them ? hmmmm

[Mat_Helm]

Because it is nothing news worthy or new and because they paid Al Qaida terrorists for it. That is why and also why they tried to cover it up.

[Darlin']

Oh, you are right about that. It was bold to take out an ad in the NYT. FOFLOL. Of course, no point in using the WSJ, that would be like preaching to the choir. Their subscribers already, 'know all the news that is fit to know.' LOL. (Sorry, couldn't resist that paraphrase. )

[Sandy]

The Times said a full-page ad in its business section generally runs around $100,000.

Holy moly... that's a lot of money.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

You can buy almost anything for enough money in that part of the world.. why shouldn't Western reporters (in this case, from CNN) take advantage of that?

Well, just because you don't give directly to a terrorist, that could be Clinton-talk. A terrorist's wife for example. What would you expect from the Clinton News Network?

I'm not saying they did, but people don't trust them anymore. People generally get the creeps over who they paid.

[Darlin']

Who knows. Maybe he got paid twice. Maybe Osama or Omar paid the dude in Afghanistan or wherever to offer the tape to CNN for a price. You don't have to know much about CNN to know they'd go for it.

[Darlin']

You got that right. :)

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Fox better be on its best behavior from now on.

Wouldn't you say that this is a sign of self confidence on the part of Fox? I think they would love to mix it up with CNN. Bring them your worst. They've been waiting for a fight like this.

[AM2000]

Because it is nothing news worthy or new...

Agreed, but it's their money so it's their decision whether they'd like to spend it or not. Or would you rather we all polled each other on whether an expenditure was "worthy" before we did it?

... and because they paid Al Qaida terrorists for it.

You don't know that - try not to let your instinctive hatred for CNN make you jump to conclusions like that. For all you know, the tapes could have been stashed away somewhere and discovered by a Northern Alliance solder who then sold it to CNN. Bottom line, nor you nor I know who sold it to CNN.

That is why and also why they tried to cover it up.

Again, you're jumping to conclusions. You have absolutely no idea why they tried to cover it up. It could have been a communications error, like they said - although I doubt that very much.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Did bin-Laden ever answer CNN's questions from last October or was that just a publicity stunt like their non-stop, tabloid-like, al-Qaida video "journalism"?

[AM2000]

I'm not saying they did, but people don't trust them anymore.

CNN has ruined its credibility time and again -- this latest example is just the latest. However, I just don't think western reporters should be averse to spending some money to get people in that part of the world to reveal information they may not otherwise. I know for a fact that in that entire region (middle east, south asia) a little money can go a very long way - western reporters would have to be silly to not take advantage of that. That's all I'm trying to sya.