Saudi Prince, Now Part Owner of Murdoch's News Corp., Influences Fox News

Wow! I wonder how the average Fox devotee would feel if they knew?

Thanks for the post. I forwarded this article to a friend who will find it very interesting. Hopefully he'll be a frequent visitor of your site now. cheers!

Fair and Balanced in Arabic is عادل ومتوازن

Why did I think there was a law against a foreign country/person owning a radio or television station/network? This country is on a fast track to becoming foreign owned!

Shame on you Rupert. What you have done is disgusting IMO. Having a lot of money doesn't justify your behavior. America deserves better.

Thanks for the post.

I find it hilarious hearing that there is a Muslim partial ownership of Fox...
YOU CAN'T WRITE THIS STUFF..

Fox with their bigoted, slanted ,anti just-about-anything mentality being owned partially owned by a Muslim....PRICELESS!!!

I bookmarked this story so I can send the link to all the hateful racists who frequent the AOL POLITICAL chat rooms, with their "all Muslims are terrorists" approach and yet claim they are "good Christians"...but openly expressing the notion that all Muslims are evil and terrorists and expressing HATE for all religions other than Christian! Reminds me of former students in my home-ec classes who screamed they 'hate broccolli", but admiting they really never, ever
tasted it! Seems to me that most bigots are racists don't read the facts first...they merely just know they HATE all other religions!

I worked in media for years, received checks from most of these networks at one time or another. To me MSNBC are just the ugliest liars in the business. How a Maddow can be employed by the makers of nuke detonators and fighter-guts and work simultaneously to elect Darth Bama always eluded me. CNN makes up controversies. They take a quote out of context from an interview they do and pick a fight, saying "so and so is speaking out...." or "so and so complained that........" after tricking a source into it with a loaded question, they use everywhere in their product for a whole cycle...... CBS, well you see what Couric did to Palin in the editing room. ABC is just plain snotty and shouldn't be allowed to do news. I always perceived Fox as having the best footage, the most reporters in the field and oddly what appears to me, the viewer, as the most likely to let a source say whatever and let the chips fall. Anyone watching the "NO BIAS NO BULL' stuff on the GZ Mosque would just have their eyes spinning in their heads it's so blatantly dishonest and studid. To me that's why they have 10% of OReilly's numbers.
So.......this arab owning 5% is very very disturbing. Gulianni gave this scumbag's dough back and talked about it on CNN the other day, I didn't see him on Fox which now is not surprising. This is very very bad. I remember hearing about this and not internalizing it is the same pathetic prince......saudi prince, what an oxymoron those lowlife feces scum, how can an arab be royalty of anything but sand or feces? Suffice it to say I'm outraged and want Uncle Rupert to buy back Newscorp.

i wrote a long thoughtful post, somehow have the feeling it won't make it. bottom line, this is not a good development, but the other nets all have some bad stuff too

For the sake of accuracy, it should be noted that the article above is a bit off when it says that the Saudi prince now has a "controlling" stake. He has 7%. While that, along with the other financial relationships between his business and Murdoch may be enough to give him some leverage over Fox News' editorial decisions, this is not legally a controlling stake.

This distinction explains why it is legal for him to hold this stake without violating the rules on foreign ownership of US media which someone brought up in an earlier comment. Those laws don't prohibit small stakes, but they do prohibit foreigners from taking larger stakes (I can't remember the percentage cutoff, but its somewhere around 30-40%, at which point it is possible, depending on the structure of the rest of the ownership, for the foreigner to have a type of controlling legal interest).

That said, one might question whether we should re-examine this threshold in light of the fact that it would seem that even a relatively small minority shareholding, combined with other financial relationships, might be enough for the Prince to exert some level of editorial influence over Fox.

Maybe we need a system where any significant foreign investment in US media should be subject to review and approval, like with other transactions that need to be cleared by CFIUS. (I should note here that I have no idea how CFIUS works or whether they would currently have jurisdiction to review the purchase of a 7% stake in a US media company. They might; I'm not sure)

Your second comment which tried to give some sort of praise to your first comment was quite amusing. Your journalistic fortitude shines in your posts, I must say. Media needs ratings to survive, correct? Wouldn't you say they all use near the same tactics, just with a different spin? And I believe the article you are commenting on was lost in your rhetoric about CNN and MSNBC.

The pro-radical Muslim Saudi that bought into News Corp can now apparently force changes in what they show on the whim of a phone call. It makes me smile to think that your daily routine must involve several hours of your day spent wasting over FoxNews only to find out you very well might be supporting a radical Muslim who blamed America for 9-11. So, go pump your fist at Glen Beck and keep supporting the "sand and feces" that you mentioned. (You did notice that he has been a major shareholder since 2005 right?)

Please keep your tea-party mentality to yourself, (I use the word "tea-party" synonymously with "lobotomy") and try not to come out of Sarah Palin's camp until you can come up with something that actually deals with the article you obviously skimmed. I would suggest restricting yourself to sites that have wealthy people giving you sound bites to tell you how to think. Thinking for yourself was obviously too much of a chore for you.

It's interesting that FoxNews despite being now partially owned by a Saudi still has guts to use words "terrorist, muslim and Islam" when so many other networks are drowning in their apparent political correctness with "enemy combatants" and "overseas contingency operations". When did you hear CNN or MSNBC last time use term "Muslim terrorist" for those who in name of Allah blow up market places full of innocent civilians (often Muslims themselves)?

The amount of hate and vile in these posts coming from left is staggering. You guys are way scarier and more dangerous for this country then any Saudi prince trying to change FoxNews headline from Muslim to Civilian.

By their own standard, Fox News is a sponsor of terrorism. The network urged viewers to "follow the money trail" on the mosque story. It lead to the Kingdom Foundation, and the revelation that the Saudi Prince has a 7% share in Fox News. Prince al-Waleed bin Talal, the 2nd largest stakeholder of Fox behind Murdoch, is a known terrorist sympathizer, and blamed 9/11 on America.
When you watch Fox News, you are making this Saudi Prince rich(er). He earns money from Fox, which then trickles down to terrorist organizations.
So turn the network off, and don't contribute to the scam, and send this link to everyone you know. How, in good conscience, could any patriotic American watch this network? Why isn't the main steam media following this story?

True, Beck can have his antics. BUT....he always says "don't believe me...check it out for yourself". He offers evidence of everything he says....and I do not trust ANYONE, so I do my own research. I was told by a friend this evening about the Saudi Prince....so, doing my own research, found this article. 7% hardly constitutes "control".......but must admit it was still a shocker.
Fox reports both sides....very unlike the left wing networks, and so I will stay with Fox.

This is a bunch of lies. No proof of these claims is offered.