Funny how walls tumble, karma kicks in and the truth wins out! Will this lead to the end of Fox as well? If karma sticks around until the end...."you betcha"!-Mem
The Fall of the House of Murdoch
Forbes obviously doesn't have a fact check, is a part of the Republican Party, has a stake in the republicans taking back the White House, owned by Murdoch or they just have lousy writers who are practicing to work for Fox!-Mem
It does not surprise me that Fox would be a part of this. They are Corporate Propaganda! They are THE BIG LIE that the religious right has fallen for just as their Bible predicted. ("The Beasts", "False Prophets", "The Anti-Christs") They think that Obama is the Anti-Christ and I'm going to assume because his skin is black. They missed the fact that in the Bible the word Anti-Christs was plural, not singular. The beast is not a man but a system, an order...a corporate order if you will and the False Prophets came out of the churches, not from the un-believers! (kind of reminds me of Palin and others from the churches coming forth) Let me add that I know this world and was raised in it. Their Fears are real and until we understand this we cannot make a difference. ~MemAccording to the report from Yahoo!'s John Cook, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, who owns seven percent of News Corp., "has directly funded [Imam Feisal Abdul] Rauf's projects to the tune of more than $300,000."
Cook reports that Prince Al-Waleed's personal charity, the Kingdom Foundation, donated $305,000 to Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow, a project sponsored by two of Rauf's initiatives, the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Initiative, which is building the Manhattan mosque.
That Fox News' second-largest shareholder, after Rupert Murdoch, has financial links to the "Ground Zero mosque" will be seen as ironic by critics of the news network, who have watched with chagrin as the network's talking heads attempt to link the mosque to radical Islamism.
Last week, Daily Show host Jon Stewart lambasted Fox panelist Eric Bolling's attempt to link the Cordoba Initiative to Hamas and Iran. Stewart used News Corp.'s connections to Prince Al-Waleed, and the prince's connections to the Carlyle Group and Osama bin Laden to make a tongue-in-cheek argument that Fox News may be a "terrorist command center."
"Stewart didn't need to take all those steps to make the connection," Cook writes.Cook also reports that Prince Al-Waleed has in the past funded a number of Islamic organizations that have been maligned by Fox News commentators:
Al-Waleed donated $500,000 to the Council on American-Islamic Relations — which has been repeatedly denounced on Fox News's air by Geller and others as a terror group — in 2002. Indeed, Rauf's "numerous ties to CAIR" alone have been cited by the mosque's opponents as a justification for imputing terrorist sympathies to him, yet few people seem to be asking whether Murdoch's extensive multi-billion business collaboration with the man who funds both Rauf and CAIR merits investigation or concern.
Other beneficiaries of Al-Waleed's largess include the Islamic Development Bank, a project designed to "foster the economic development and social progress of [Muslims] in accordance with the principles of Shari'ah." The IDB funds the construction of mosques around the world, and has been implicated by frequent Fox News guest Stephen Schwartz in an attempt to spread radical Wahhabism (a fundamentalist branch of Islam) throughout the United States.
Cook notes that it was none other than News Corp.'s New York Post that reported on Prince Al-Waleed's donation to Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow. He reports that Fox News had no comment for his article, and emails to the prince's Kingdom Foundation were not returned.
Prince Al-Waleed owns an estimated $2.5-billion-worth of News Corp. Majority shareholder Rupert Murdoch recently took a stake in the prince's Middle East-based media conglomerate, Rotana Group. Murdoch and Prince Al-Waleed are reportedly working on launching an Arabic news network that will compete with existing pan-Arabic networks Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya.
By FRANK RICH (one of my favorite columnist) Here’s what’s been lost in all the screaming. The prime movers in the campaign against the “ground zero mosque” just happen to be among the last cheerleaders for America’s nine-year war in Afghanistan. The wrecking ball they’re wielding is not merely pounding Park51, as the project is known, but is demolishing America’s already frail support for that war, which is dedicated to nation-building in a nation whose most conspicuous asset besides opium is actual mosques.
So virulent is the Islamophobic hysteria of the neocon and Fox News right — abetted by the useful idiocy of the Anti-Defamation League, Harry Reid and other cowed Democrats — that it has also rendered Gen. David Petraeus’s last-ditch counterinsurgency strategy for fighting the war inoperative. How do you win Muslim hearts and minds in Kandahar when you are calling Muslims every filthy name in the book in New York?
You’d think that American hawks invested in the Afghanistan “surge” would not act against their own professed interests. But they couldn’t stop themselves from placing cynical domestic politics over country. The ginned-up rage over the “ground zero mosque” was not motivated by a serious desire to protect America from the real threat of terrorists lurking at home and abroad — a threat this furor has in all likelihood exacerbated — but by the potential short-term rewards of winning votes by pandering to fear during an election season.
We owe thanks to Justin Elliott of Salon for the single most revealing account of this controversy’s evolution. He reports that there was zero reaction to the “ground zero mosque” from the front-line right or anyone else except marginal bloggers when The Times first reported on the Park51 plans in a lengthy front-page article on Dec. 9, 2009. The sole exception came some two weeks later at Fox News, where Laura Ingraham, filling in on “The O’Reilly Factor,” interviewed Daisy Khan, the wife of the project’s organizer, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Ingraham gave the plans her blessing. “I can’t find many people who really have a problem with it,” she said. “I like what you’re trying to do.”
As well Ingraham might. Rauf is no terrorist. He has been repeatedly sent on speaking tours by the Bush and Obama State Departments alike to promote tolerance in Arab and Muslim nations. As Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic reported last week, Rauf gave a moving eulogy at a memorial service for Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter murdered by Islamist terrorists in Pakistan, at the Manhattan synagogue B’nai Jeshurun. Pearl’s father was in attendance. The Park51 board is chock-full of Christians and Jews. Perhaps the most threatening thing about this fledgling multi-use community center, an unabashed imitator of the venerable (and Jewish) 92nd Street Y uptown, is its potential to spawn yet another coveted, impossible-to-get-into Manhattan private preschool.
In the five months after The Times’s initial account there were no newspaper articles on the project at all. It was only in May of this year that the Rupert Murdoch axis of demagoguery revved up, jettisoning Ingraham’s benign take for a New York Post jihad. The paper’s inspiration was a rabidly anti-Islam blogger best known for claiming that Obama was Malcolm X’s illegitimate son. Soon the rest of the Murdoch empire and its political allies piled on, promoting the incendiary libel that the “radical Islamists” behind the “ground zero mosque” were tantamount either to neo-Nazis in Skokie (according to a Wall Street Journal columnist) or actual Nazis (per Newt Gingrich).
These patriots have never attacked the routine Muslim worship services at another site of the 9/11 attacks, the Pentagon. Their sudden concern for ground zero is suspect to those of us who actually live in New York. All but 12 Republicans in the House voted against health benefits for 9/11 responders just last month. Though many of these ground-zero watchdogs partied at the 2004 G.O.P. convention in New York exploiting 9/11, none of them protested that a fellow Republican, the former New York governor George Pataki, so bollixed up the management of the World Trade Center site that nine years on it still lacks any finished buildings, let alone a permanent memorial.
The Fox patron saint Sarah Palin calls Park51 a “stab in the heart” of Americans who “still have that lingering pain from 9/11.” But her only previous engagement with the 9/11 site was when she used it as a political backdrop for taking her first questions from reporters nearly a month after being named to the G.O.P. ticket. (She was so eager to grab her ground zero photo op that she defied John McCain’s just-announced “suspension” of their campaign.) Her disingenuous piety has been topped only by Bernie Kerik, who smuggled a Twitter message out of prison to register his rage at the ground zero desecration. As my colleague Clyde Haberman reminded us, such was Kerik’s previous reverence for the burial ground of 9/11 that he appropriated an apartment overlooking the site (and designated for recovery workers) for an extramarital affair.
At the Islamophobia command center, Murdoch’s News Corporation, the hypocrisy is, if anything, thicker. A recent Wall Street Journal editorial darkly cited unspecified “reports” that Park51 has “money coming from Saudi charities or Gulf princes that also fund Wahabi madrassas.” As Jon Stewart observed, this brand of innuendo could also be applied to News Corp., whose second largest shareholder after the Murdoch family is a member of the Saudi royal family. Perhaps last week’s revelation that News Corp. has poured $1 million into G.O.P. campaign coffers was a fiendishly clever smokescreen to deflect anyone from following the far greater sum of Saudi money (a $3 billion stake) that has flowed into Murdoch enterprises, or the News Corp. money (at least $70 million) recently invested in a Saudi media company.
Were McCain in the White House, Fox and friends would have kept ignoring Park51. But it’s an irresistible target in our current election year because it revives the most insidious anti-Obama narrative of the many Fox promoted in the previous election year: Obama the closet Muslim and secret madrassa alumnus. In the much discussed latest Pew poll, a record number of Americans (nearing 20 percent) said that our Christian president practices Islam. And they do not see that as a good thing. Existing or proposed American mosques hundreds and even thousands of miles from ground zero, from Tennessee to Wisconsin to California, are now under siege.
After 9/11, President Bush praised Islam as a religion of peace and asked for tolerance for Muslims not necessarily because he was a humanitarian or knew much about Islam but because national security demanded it. An America at war with Islam plays right into Al Qaeda’s recruitment spiel. This month’s incessant and indiscriminate orgy of Muslim-bashing is a national security disaster for that reason — Osama bin Laden’s “next video script has just written itself,” as the former F.B.I. terrorist interrogator Ali Soufan put it — but not just for that reason. America’s Muslim partners, those our troops are fighting and dying for, are collateral damage. If the cleric behind Park51 — a man who has participated in events with Condoleezza Rice and Karen Hughes, for heaven’s sake — is labeled a closet terrorist sympathizer and a Nazi by some of the loudest and most powerful conservative voices in America, which Muslims are not?
In the latest CNN poll, American opposition is at an all-time high to both the ostensibly concluded war in Iraq (69 percent) and the endless one in Afghanistan (62 percent). Now, when the very same politicians and pundits who urge infinite patience for Afghanistan slime Muslims as Nazis, they will have to explain that they are not talking about Hamid Karzai or his corrupt narco-thug government or the questionably loyal Afghan armed forces our own forces are asked to entrust with their lives. The hawks will have to make the case that American troops should make the ultimate sacrifice to build a Nazi — Afghan, I mean — nation and that economically depressed taxpayers should keep paying for it. Good luck with that.
Poor General Petraeus. Over the last week he has been ubiquitous in the major newspapers and on television as he pursues a publicity tour to pitch the war he’s inherited. But have you heard any buzz about what he had to say? Any debate? Any anything? No one was listening and no one cared. Everyone was too busy yelling about the mosque.
It’s poignant, really. Even as America’s most venerable soldier returned from the front to valiantly assume the role of Willy Loman, the product he was selling was being discredited and discontinued by his own self-proclaimed allies at home.
Murdoch, Saudi prince team up to launch ‘Arabic Fox News’By Daniel Tencer
First and foremost among those questions is whether a news service linked to the famously pro-Israeli Fox News will resonate among Arab viewers.
"Fox News, famous for its uncomplicated, gung-ho and pro-Israel stance whilst maintaining a mocking notion of neutrality, does not seem like a likely partner" for the Middle Eastern news network, writes David Roberts at the Gulf Blog. "Their coverage of Middle Eastern issues is far from renowned or competent."
The new channel, based in Saudi Arabia, "will focus on development in Saudi Arabia and the Arab world on the political, economic and social fronts," Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the world's 19th-wealthiest person according to Forbes, said in a statement.
The network will be competing with the two principal international Arabic news services, Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, and "is going to become an addition and an alternative for viewers," bin Talal said.
His statement gave no name for the new channel, and it only said the launch would be in the "near future."The deal comes four months after Murdoch bought a nine-percent stake in bin Talal's Rotana Group. Bin Talal owns seven percent of Murdoch's News Corp, making him the largest shareholder after Murdoch himself.
As RAW STORY reported last year, the Saudi prince is known for his financial ties to the Bush family and the defense industry-oriented Carlyle Group and for owning a fair-sized stake in Disney and in Citigroup.
At times, the growing partnership between Murdoch and bin Talal has proven embarrassing for Murdoch's network, whose commentators and guests often take stridently anti-Arab positions.
Earlier this year, Fox host Glenn Beck appeared to blame the 9/11 attacks on bin Talal, when he paraphrased Giuliani as saying to bin Talal, "I don't think we want your help. You already sent us help, and you flew that help into the plane-- into the trade centers."
Following the 9/11 attacks, then-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani refused a $10 million aid offer from bin Talal, because the Saudi prince had suggested that US policies may have contributed to the attacks. At the time, Fox News praised Giuliani's decision.
It's these sorts of tensions that make media observers wonder whether an alliance between the owner of Fox News and an Arabic news network can work.
"Just because it’ll have News Corp. backing doesn’t necessarily mean it’ll be friendly to the Western interests, if only because the network won’t be incredibly profitable if it’s all pro-West, all the time," writes Michael Merritt at the Atlantic Right blog. "But I’ll take a bet that it will be less biased against the West than, say, Al-Jazeera."
Merritt speculates that the network may also incur the wrath of Saudi censors if it takes its pro-Western attitude too far for the country's conservative ruling class.
Max Fisher at the Atlantic Wire suggests it may be a good idea for the new news network not to rely too heavily on Fox News as a source of information. He points to a map that Fox recently ran, showing Iraq labeled as "Egypt."
Find more news and stories at The raw Story
Unbelievable! Fox has lied out of it's teeth since President Obama announced his run for President! They have filled the minds of the American people with the koolaid of deception, racism, hate mongering, fear and violence and they have the nerve to want an apology. Why because they have gotten away with this for two years now. Not only have they gotten away with it but they have made their "journalism" acceptable and copied by others!Fox News’ Brit Hume delivered a commentary on Special Report with Bret Baier, where demanded that the media apologize to Fox News for calling them racist. Fox wants an apology from the NAACP, Howard Dean, and Shirley Sherrod. Hume said, “You might think all this would be the stuff of further apologies.”
Video courtesy of Media Matters:
By Howard Kurtz Washington Post Staff Writer
ST. PAUL, Minn., Sept. 2 -- At a secret meeting with Barack Obama three months ago, Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes says, he tried to clear the air with the Democratic senator by saying that his organization was determined to be fair but would not be "in the tank" for Obama's campaign.
During the sit-down in a Waldorf-Astoria hotel suite in Manhattan that included Rupert Murdoch, the network's owner, Obama expressed concern about the way Fox was covering him. "I just wanted to know if I'm going to get a fair shake from Fox News Channel," Ailes recalled him saying.
"Senator, you're the one who boycotted us," Ailes says he replied. "We're not the ones who boycotted you. Nor did we retaliate for your boycott."
The meeting appears to have eased tensions between the two camps, which began when all the Democratic candidates, complaining that the network favors Republicans, refused to hold any primary-season debates on Fox. After resisting invitations for months, Obama now plans to appear on Bill O'Reilly's prime-time Fox program on Thursday, the night that John McCain delivers his acceptance speech at the Republican convention here.
Ailes said in an interview Tuesday that he would never have discussed the matter publicly had Vanity Fair not published an account of the earlier portion of the meeting, in which Murdoch sat on one side and Obama and advisers David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs on the other. The article, based on a forthcoming book about Murdoch by Michael Wolff, says Obama told the Australian-born mogul that he didn't want to waste time talking to Ailes if Fox was going to keep attacking the senator and his wife and portraying him as suspicious and foreign.
Asked for comment about the meeting, Murdoch adviser Gary Ginsberg said both Ailes and Murdoch "had a really cordial and constructive conversation" with Obama.
"They had a frank discussion, aired concerns on our side, and we're happy we were able to air our concerns," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.
Ailes, who joined the meeting in progress and spoke to Obama for 20 to 25 minutes, disputed the article's assertion that the candidate had "lit into" him. He called Obama "a very charming guy" who is "very smart" and was "gracious" throughout the meeting.
Underneath all the politeness, each side clearly wanted something. Ailes was interested in smoothing relations and having Obama appear on his network, and the senator from Illinois hoped to neutralize a potential adversary and improve his treatment on the nation's top-rated cable news channel.
Upon joining the meeting, Ailes shook Obama's hand and sat down next to him. As Ailes recalls it, he responded to Obama's concern about fairness by saying that "there are opinion shows and there are news shows." Some of the criticism, Ailes told him, has come from conservative commentator and co-host Sean Hannity -- whom he likened to MSNBC's more liberal pundits Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews.
Hannity has led the media pack in repeatedly playing videos of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's controversial former pastor, and questioning his association with William Ayers, a member of the violent Weather Underground in the 1960s. In a recent interview with Glamour magazine, Obama said Fox News and others went after his wife, Michelle, "in a pretty systematic way. . . . If you start being subjected to rants by Sean Hannity and the like, day in and day out, that'll drive up your negatives."
"If you're asking me if we're going to be in the tank for you, like MSNBC and CNN, the answer is no," Ailes recalls saying. Executives at the rival cable networks say it is Fox's political coverage that has been unfair.
According to Ailes, a onetime adviser to Republican presidential candidates, when Obama asked what issues Ailes was concerned about, he replied, "The sovereignty and security of the United States of America, period." Obama, he said, responded by talking about his love of country and his plans to end the Iraq war.
The talk turned to "The O'Reilly Factor," and Obama said he would appear on the show before the election. Ailes says he told the senator that there would be no "embarrassing or underhanded stuff" in the interview and that if he had any overall concerns about Fox's treatment in the future, he should call Ailes directly.
Murdoch has a history of mending fences with political adversaries whom his news outlets have strongly criticized, from former British prime minister Tony Blair to Sen. Hillary Clinton. An executive familiar with Murdoch's thinking, who declined to be identified discussing private conversations, said Murdoch sought the meeting because he is fascinated by Obama but that the two still have serious policy disagreements.
Asked to assess the sit-down, Ailes said: "I wanted him to understand that we're a real journalism organization and we're going to cover what's there. We're not out to get him. . . . Neither of us was overly aggressive but neither of us blinked."
Howard Kurtz hosts CNN's weekly media program, "Reliable Sources."