Fox or Faux News or Both?
By Susan Steffen-Kraft
In Sept. 2010, Fox news had some intense interest in a mosque and Islamic center that was to be built near ground zero in NYC. Interestingly enough Fox News shared a financial backer with the imam. Of course, the voting stock in News Corp. is held in part by Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, who is the Saudi king's nephew. He is the second-largest-holder of this voting stock. He has though his philanthropies given generously to enterprises pursued by the imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. He helped to rescue the American banking giant Citigroup twice and is also one of the largest holders. Interestingly, he has big stakes in the rival media giants Time Warner and Disney. Waleed is not one it seems to put all his pennies in one pot.
His uncle, King Abdullah rules the Saudi empire under Sharia law. Yet, Sean Hannity who has a talk show on this network screams about Sharia law replacing our laws. Interesting, is it not?
The Saudi prince, who owns a 5.7 percent share of Fox New has also claimed that in 2005 he persuaded Murdoch to quickly stop the top-rated cable network from identifying the unrest in France as “Muslim riots. Shortly thereafter, it was changed to civil riots. My my! Waleed now holds 7 percent of the voting stock in News Corp. That is more than any other person not named Rupert Murdoch! In the year 2005, when Muslims were rioting in Paris which was the worst street violence since 1968, Alwaleed telephoned Rupert Murdoch, as Alwaleed himself and said "these are not Muslim riots, they are riots." Somehow, magically, the Fox News crawl about "Muslim riots in Paris" which was across the bottom of the screen changed to "civil riots."
I felt at times like National Enquirer was there asking the questions and they might have done a better job by the way.
The hit job, should you wish to call it that, that I am doing is not so much on Meghan, although I did not like the way she approached things, but on Fox News.
"Establishment Republicans, as represented by Fox News, who’ve run and supported people like Dole, Bush, McCain and Romney. They have, because of this, given us Presidents Clinton and Obama. Fox News it seems wants to make the Republican Party similar to but different then or a cheap imitation of the Democrat Party. When you get behind Boehner, McConnell, McCain and Lindsey and you are giving support to Bush and Christie then I call foul.They are behind Boehner, McConnell, McCain and Lindsey. So do you expect the commentators in the Fox News political debates to be any better than Murdoch and company?
"It's clear that Martha Washington (one of Savage's nick names for her), Roger Ailes, and Rupert Murdoch are working for Hillary Clinton," the pundit said on his Savage Report Friday Aug. 7, 2015. "It's as clear as a bell that 'Mayhem Kelly' has gone over to the dark side, and frankly her looks are changing." Amazingly, Michael Savage has never been given a place for his show on Fox. Not hard to figure why! Most of Fox News hosts are political hacks. Michael Savage attacks, brands, and undresses both sides of the political charade and is not a propaganda arm of the Republican Party. Savage calls it as he sees it and he sees it quite clearly.
Savage has no love for Fox News as shown by his remarks because of the hatchet job they did on Edward Snowden. “I heard the empty skirts on Fox News and I was more appalled then I’ve ever been. From the lipstick-wearing empty skirts shifting their legs around as one after the other empty skirts said, ‘Oh, he’s not a patriot. If he was a real patriot, he should’ve stood here and taken his medicine.’ As they said inside the safety of the Fox News studio. Shame on all of you empty skirts! You’re nothing more than lipstick with a pair of legs on it! Shame on you! What do you mean? He should’ve stayed here and gotten killed?”
I concur with Michael Savage!
But of course, his audience from the Nixon years is aging and so he is now catering to the "it is not about the news but how you gather it to influence your side". Representsments and antagonisms have divided our culture and Rodger Ailes is at the center of the merging of journalism and politics. In 1996, Ailes took control of Fox News and proceeded to build it into an aggressive conservative entity. Their programs sometimes stretch the definition of “news" profit and pander to what and how they present these programs. This is not a judgment, just a statement.
I question Rupert Murdoch having deep Jewish roots and touts the agenda of the Jewish nation and yet.....he has allowed a Muslim Prince to invest in Fox. Playing both sides are we Rupert? New York Governor George Pataki said, “There is no newspaper in the U.S. more supportive of Israel than the [Murdoch’s] New York Post.”
Yet, that Saudi money invested in Fox troubles me. I guess money from either side will buy anything. Strange how that happens. Taking out the words Muslim riots and supporting Israel also; behind the scenes, all planned and yet, treachery at times. I trust none of them. Rupert and Ailes, Israel and a Saudi prince; I smell a big rat.
Roger Ailes does not seem to always like Murdoch as per his comment "He's a fucking dope!" But ratings and revenue rule the day and as long as those remain high I suspect Murdoch will tolerate Ailes' comments because personal issues are quickly forgiven and forgotten as long as the person you hate is good at his job and is making money.
Will that extend to Murdoch pillaging Trump yet Ailes is pushing Fox to defend Trump and supports Trump's outlandish comments. Seems that Murdoch does not have any control of Ailes. If nothing else, Fox is about making money and in these controversial debates they most assuredly are. Many call it Faux News, so is that the name it should be, or should it be Fox News as in Crazy Like a Fox?