Then broadcast news that was favorable to the Moslem's point of view?
2007-09-24 17:17:58 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Liberal, isn't that a rather anti semitic thing to say?
2007-09-24 17:40:23 · update #1
I'm positive that the Saudis already influence the US mainstream media in some fashion. We are constantly exposed to supposed Iraqi and Iranian ties to terrorism, but never stuff like this:
"The charities were part of an extraordinary $70 billion Saudi campaign to spread their fundamentalist Wahhabi sect worldwide. The money helped lay the foundation for hundreds of radical mosques, schools, and Islamic centers that have acted as support networks for the jihad movement, officials say.
U.S. intelligence officials knew about Saudi Arabia's role in funding terrorism by 1996, yet for years Washington did almost nothing to stop it. Examining the Saudi role in terrorism, a senior intelligence analyst says, was "virtually taboo." Even after the embassy bombings in Africa, moves by counterterrorism officials to act against the Saudis were repeatedly rebuffed by senior staff at the State Department and elsewhere who felt that other foreign policy interests outweighed fighting terrorism." (US News and World Report)
.
2007-09-24 17:35:27 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
You mean like an Australian used his British media wealth to buy American TV stations and newspapers and then started a Cable "News" network to broadcast 'news' that was favorable to the GOP party line?
2007-09-25 00:23:22 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
Better than a bunch of Saudi's used thier oil wealth to attack America and our president saying hunting them down just doesn't matter - we'll go invade Iraq instead.
2007-09-25 00:39:42 · answer #3 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
They have about a ton of money invested in this country already, I'd be surprised if some of it wasn't tied up in media.
Not that I've heard of them trying to influence the news, the way advertisers are sometimes alleged to.
2007-09-25 00:25:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Probably not. Our media will always lie to us regardless who owns it. Its just one more reason to boycott it.
What would the difference be? This most ESPECIALLY applies to Fox, the Volkishe Beobachter of the American 21st Century.
2007-09-25 00:28:20 · answer #5 · answered by planksheer 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Saudis already own AOL and Newsweek.
2007-09-25 00:53:40 · answer #6 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
right now they mostly favorite a jewish POV
2007-09-25 00:34:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
...and this would be different than Fox and Rupert Murdoch how...?
2007-09-25 00:21:51 · answer #8 · answered by Adam S 7 · 7⤊ 1⤋
If you watch ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, BBC you would think that it'd already happened. TG for Fox
2007-09-25 00:25:13 · answer #9 · answered by Bego?a R 3 · 2⤊ 7⤋