[ol]
[li]You can invest in order to gain income directly from the business.[/li][li]You can make charitable donations purely for ideological reasons without any expectation of profit.[/li][li]You can invest in an organization, specifically a news organization, in an attempt to influence a country’s political process in ways that you hope will increase your profits from other enterprises.[/li][/ol]
Number 3 is the one the OP seems to be hinting at. You’re trying to lump it in with number 2 as being charitable but I don’t see it as the same thing at all.
That said, it doesn’t seem to me that 7% ownership gives you much control over content, so I think number 1 is the most likely motivation.
Saudi Arabia is on the record of hating other Islamic nations, according to the Wikileaks, Iran is on the top of the list now.
Having said that, I do not think Fox is controlled by Muslims, what it is more likely is what **Lobohan **said, and I base it on the reprehensible behavior the Saudi Delegation took on the past Climate Change meet at Copenhagen.
First, it has to be mentioned that early before the meet took place, most scientific organizations had declared that the so called “ClimateGate” scandal did not affect the science, later several investigations showed that the scandal was invented.
I do remember that most delegates had concluded before the meet that the “scandal” was not worthy of discussion, so there were a lot of shaking heads when Saudi Arabia swallowed the scandal. Of course, the fact that Saudi Arabia is OPEC’s leading producer and exporter of oil was in the minds of many when they shook their heads.
FOX had and continues to make a mountain of that molehill of that scandal, and since most Republican politicians are also deniers and followers of FOX, it is not strange that Saudi Arabia would try to support or encourage FOX on this.
As I said above I don’t think it’s controlled by muslims (and I’m sure you’d consider me a liberal).
However, in theory there’s no reason it couldn’t be both controlled by Saudi royals and stoke Islamophobia.
Stoking Islamophobia can lead to the election of right-wing governments which tend to be friendly to the oil industry, which is a good thing from the viewpoint of the Saudi royal family.
We’ve got a constellation of: Fox. GOP. Sharia Law. Muslims. Big money.
Oklahoma has a population which is only .2% (.02%?) Muslim. Yet a law passed banning Sharia law in Oklahoma. Obviously, to the GOP worldview, Muslims are extraordinarily potent and urgently need to be nipped in the bud before they take over like some kind of political dandelion.
But! Their propaganda organ is far more saturated with Muslims than mild ol’ Oklahoma. If Saudi interests control 7% of Fox News, that is 35x the concentration of Muslims found in Oklahoma (350x?!?). What measures does that demand of the GOP?
I’m not sure what conflict of ideologies you get with the Australians, unless you go so far as to bring the Brits into it. Russians? It was the USSR which was our Cold War adversary, and they’re gone. The Russians probably still arouse suspicion, but more in John McCain than in you or I.
This is literally nonsense. There’s no coherent idea here. Oklahoma isn’t a network. NewsCorp doesn’t have any “saturation” of Muslims (part ownership of the parent company by a Muslim is not equivalent to the Muslim population of a state). I’m sure there are plenty of Fox News viewers in Oklahoma, but the people who passed the Sharia law ban in Oklahoma are not the viewers of Fox News en masse. The Sharia ban is stupid, and so is the Muslim-baiting Fox News sometimes broadcasts. Your connection between the two things makes no sense.
Satire isn’t nearly so funny when it needs to be explained. The people connecting Sharia law to an imminent takeover in Oklahoma, and the people whipping up hysteria on FoxNews over it make no sense except in the ugly sense of finding a minority to demonize.
Those rich enough to buy significant interest in NewsCorp may be more interested in its profitability than in promoting their (perhaps mainly just putative) faith, and that would come from continuing to cater to its target market, whatever it takes.
First I’ve heard of Murdoch being Jewish, I gotta admit. Or maybe Citizen Pained’s definition of antisemitism is getting broader every day.
Well… Oklahoma is no network, true, but it is a body politic. .2% Muslim content was enough to trigger the GOP crackdown of a Sharia law ban.
Fox NewsCorp is, well, a corporate person. If it is 7% owned by Saudis, assuming those Saudis are Muslim then there is no other way of viewing NewsCorp except as being (at least!) a 7% Muslim entity (Yah I suppose you could judge NewsCorp by its actions, but never mind that). It is simply the maths of corporate personhood. When this entity contributes money to political campaigns (undetected under Citizens United), that’s a 7% Muslim voice producing that ‘speech’. Speech influenced by the very group they discriminate against!!
Considering that the GOP seems to be going down the road of endorsing discrimination against Muslims, how does all this jibe? Would Theodosius have allowed 7% of his eunuchs to be Pagans? Heck no, participating in Paganism was a capital offense. Would Hitler have allowed 7% of his propaganda organ to be owned by Jews? Certainly not! But if the GOP is to discriminate against Muslims, what do they do about the Muslim influence over at Fox News? How do they talk their way out of it?
The spirit of discrimination is the connection between the two things. At the end of the day no, it doesn’t really make sense. Put on your PubbieVision glasses before you attempt an answer.
Thanks for this. It is an explanation that really does add up.
7% may not be enough influence to have much say over content, but if, as GIG0buster points out, FOX is already putting out the content that supports the policies that benefit their enterprises, then maybe supporting it simply encourages it to keep it up, while also providing some direct profits from the investment. FOX seems to already be attempting to influence the political system in ways that might benefit certain Saudi interests, so all that is required is a little help.
I suppose if there are similar investments at MSNBC or CBS or what-have-you it would blow this whole line of thought out of the water, and we’re solidly at point #1.
Not really, no. There are thousands of Saudi princes. There’s no reason to assume that any particular one represents more than his own personal interests.