Last edited by Reciprocity (2010-09-01 21:01:00)
I'd say neither. There's normally a serious disconnect between a parent corporation and its subsidiaries, especially in one as large as News Corp.Reciprocity wrote:
It's just funny that the people at Fox News were so eager to connect this "ground zero mosque" to terrorism and extremists that they implicated a major shareholder of the company they work for. So the question was posed; are they that stupid or that evil?
I don't think it's that though... It seems more like a deliberate use of controversy for profit in an exceptionally ironic way.JohnG@lt wrote:
I don't see why that's an issue at all. Why should his name be dragged through the mud simply because a bunch of people overreacted to something they were led to believe was bigger, closer and more relevant than what it actually is. We've had enough witch hunts in our legal history based on populist anger. Anything to mitigate further abuse is fine by me.Turquoise wrote:
I'm not suggesting the Prince came up with the idea all by himself, but I'm sure he's seen the profit to be made. The only conspiratorial angle I see in this is that he's probably using his influence to keep Fox from mentioning him by name, even though they've already mentioned his charity behind the community center.JohnG@lt wrote:
I think you're reading too much into it. Fox has been producing wild story after wild story for the past year and a half while doing everything possible to condemn Obama and make him look bad. There have probably been a thousand attacks made and this one happened to be the one that stuck and struck a chord with people. They've been pounding away on that knee trying to get a reaction and finally hit the right spot with the average American. Not exactly a conspiracy.
...quite possibly....Reciprocity wrote:
They insinuate that this person is linked to terrorist organizations and they don't know he's the 2nd largest shareholder of newscorp? They are that stupid.
Because I think it's a serious stretch to assume that the guy funded the mosque to boost Fox's ratings and thereby profit?Turquoise wrote:
I don't think it's that though... It seems more like a deliberate use of controversy for profit in an exceptionally ironic way.JohnG@lt wrote:
I don't see why that's an issue at all. Why should his name be dragged through the mud simply because a bunch of people overreacted to something they were led to believe was bigger, closer and more relevant than what it actually is. We've had enough witch hunts in our legal history based on populist anger. Anything to mitigate further abuse is fine by me.Turquoise wrote:
I'm not suggesting the Prince came up with the idea all by himself, but I'm sure he's seen the profit to be made. The only conspiratorial angle I see in this is that he's probably using his influence to keep Fox from mentioning him by name, even though they've already mentioned his charity behind the community center.
It seems odd to me that you would gloss over this sort of thing in the business world, but you usually are much more reactionary about it in government.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-01 21:22:28)
No, that's not what I'm saying... I'm saying that he's probably figured out that having Fox harp on this controversy will make him more money through higher ratings.JohnG@lt wrote:
Because I think it's a serious stretch to assume that the guy funded the mosque to boost Fox's ratings and thereby profit?Turquoise wrote:
I don't think it's that though... It seems more like a deliberate use of controversy for profit in an exceptionally ironic way.JohnG@lt wrote:
I don't see why that's an issue at all. Why should his name be dragged through the mud simply because a bunch of people overreacted to something they were led to believe was bigger, closer and more relevant than what it actually is. We've had enough witch hunts in our legal history based on populist anger. Anything to mitigate further abuse is fine by me.
It seems odd to me that you would gloss over this sort of thing in the business world, but you usually are much more reactionary about it in government.
Even if that were the case there's nothing illegal about it. Look at our celebrities that profit off of negative PR as much as they do the positive. They hire people to create stories for them all the time
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-09-01 21:24:40)
Read my edit: celebrities do that type of thing every day of the week. There's nothing illegal about that even if it were true.Turquoise wrote:
No, that's not what I'm saying... I'm saying that he's probably figured out that having Fox harp on this controversy will make him more money through higher ratings.JohnG@lt wrote:
Because I think it's a serious stretch to assume that the guy funded the mosque to boost Fox's ratings and thereby profit?Turquoise wrote:
I don't think it's that though... It seems more like a deliberate use of controversy for profit in an exceptionally ironic way.
It seems odd to me that you would gloss over this sort of thing in the business world, but you usually are much more reactionary about it in government.
He probably funded the mosque expecting some controversy, but when Fox and several other sources decided to really stir the pot, he realized... wow... this may actually work to my advantage even though I helped create this controversy in the first place.
Who cares? You've already stretched the issue well beyond the point of reason and now you want me to worry about what if's too?Turquoise wrote:
There's nothing illegal....
but as my edit shows... this particular controversy has consequences that extend well beyond just him.
No need to get defensive.... lolJohnG@lt wrote:
Who cares? You've already stretched the issue well beyond the point of reason and now you want me to worry about what if's too?Turquoise wrote:
There's nothing illegal....
but as my edit shows... this particular controversy has consequences that extend well beyond just him.
I'm not getting defensive at all. You're just well into ATG conspiracy territory hereTurquoise wrote:
No need to get defensive.... lolJohnG@lt wrote:
Who cares? You've already stretched the issue well beyond the point of reason and now you want me to worry about what if's too?Turquoise wrote:
There's nothing illegal....
but as my edit shows... this particular controversy has consequences that extend well beyond just him.
No more than when you assume that all things government related are evil....JohnG@lt wrote:
I'm not getting defensive at all. You're just well into ATG conspiracy territory hereTurquoise wrote:
No need to get defensive.... lolJohnG@lt wrote:
Who cares? You've already stretched the issue well beyond the point of reason and now you want me to worry about what if's too?
Seriously, read the book that I just finished. Paints a nice picture of the government causing the S&L scandal from the late 80s and then scapegoating everyone that it could to take the blame off itself. Kind of like what they've been doing to Goldman and the derivatives market following the 2007 crash...Turquoise wrote:
No more than when you assume that all things government related are evil....JohnG@lt wrote:
I'm not getting defensive at all. You're just well into ATG conspiracy territory hereTurquoise wrote:
No need to get defensive.... lol
They've also managed to divert anger from 9/11 to everyone but Saudi muslims and particularly onto their personal enemies.Uzique wrote:
identify a consumer-trend --> american right-wing xenophobia, terrorism paranoia, racism/bigotry
invest in american right-wing television station after recent terrorist attacks/conflict in middle east
???
PROFIT
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-09-01 21:43:06)
I wasn't aware that News Corp owns the entirety of American media.Dilbert_X wrote:
They've also managed to divert anger from 9/11 to everyone but Saudi muslims and particularly onto their personal enemies.Uzique wrote:
identify a consumer-trend --> american right-wing xenophobia, terrorism paranoia, racism/bigotry
invest in american right-wing television station after recent terrorist attacks/conflict in middle east
???
PROFIT
Iran, who offered to help the US with AQ, are at the top of the list of evil-doers.
Well, let's see. Saudi Arabia never took hostages. Saudi citizens did mastermind 9/11, but that wasn't the state. Saudi Arabia never had a western style democracy, Iran did. There are far more citizens of Iranian birth living in the US than Saudi-born. Oh, and Saudi Arabia has oil, and we defended them from Saddam in 1991. So, while we've had a historically acrimonious relationship with Iran, the same can't be said for Saudi Arabia.Dilbert_X wrote:
Find me a Fox News fan, or any American, who thinks Iran is awesome and we should be bombing the Saudis.
When Saudi Arabia abuses human rights constantly, has no real democratic freedoms and denies women their basic rights exactly like the Taliban regime… it is inconsistent and hypocritical.JohnG@lt wrote:
Well, let's see. Saudi Arabia never took hostages. Saudi citizens did mastermind 9/11, but that wasn't the state. Saudi Arabia never had a western style democracy, Iran did. There are far more citizens of Iranian birth living in the US than Saudi-born. Oh, and Saudi Arabia has oil, and we defended them from Saddam in 1991. So, while we've had a historically acrimonious relationship with Iran, the same can't be said for Saudi Arabia.Dilbert_X wrote:
Find me a Fox News fan, or any American, who thinks Iran is awesome and we should be bombing the Saudis.
Thanks for trying to tell me how I should think though.
best just to stay out of people's business. until they try to kill you that is.Ticia wrote:
When Saudi Arabia abuses human rights constantly, has no real democratic freedoms and denies women their basic rights exactly like the Taliban regime… it is inconsistent and hypocritical.JohnG@lt wrote:
Well, let's see. Saudi Arabia never took hostages. Saudi citizens did mastermind 9/11, but that wasn't the state. Saudi Arabia never had a western style democracy, Iran did. There are far more citizens of Iranian birth living in the US than Saudi-born. Oh, and Saudi Arabia has oil, and we defended them from Saddam in 1991. So, while we've had a historically acrimonious relationship with Iran, the same can't be said for Saudi Arabia.Dilbert_X wrote:
Find me a Fox News fan, or any American, who thinks Iran is awesome and we should be bombing the Saudis.
Thanks for trying to tell me how I should think though.
No one is asking the US to leave Afghanistan and attack the Saudis but this chummy behaviour only cripples your image worldwide.
and what do euro countries do to saudis to right those injustices?Ticia wrote:
When Saudi Arabia abuses human rights constantly, has no real democratic freedoms and denies women their basic rights exactly like the Taliban regime… it is inconsistent and hypocritical.JohnG@lt wrote:
Well, let's see. Saudi Arabia never took hostages. Saudi citizens did mastermind 9/11, but that wasn't the state. Saudi Arabia never had a western style democracy, Iran did. There are far more citizens of Iranian birth living in the US than Saudi-born. Oh, and Saudi Arabia has oil, and we defended them from Saddam in 1991. So, while we've had a historically acrimonious relationship with Iran, the same can't be said for Saudi Arabia.Dilbert_X wrote:
Find me a Fox News fan, or any American, who thinks Iran is awesome and we should be bombing the Saudis.
Thanks for trying to tell me how I should think though.
No one is asking the US to leave Afghanistan and attack the Saudis but this chummy behaviour only cripples your image worldwide.
It's not our job to police the world and fix all the injustices that abound. If Saudi's want to remove the theocracy then they should rebel, topple their government, and install a new one. Until then? Not my problem.Ticia wrote:
When Saudi Arabia abuses human rights constantly, has no real democratic freedoms and denies women their basic rights exactly like the Taliban regime… it is inconsistent and hypocritical.JohnG@lt wrote:
Well, let's see. Saudi Arabia never took hostages. Saudi citizens did mastermind 9/11, but that wasn't the state. Saudi Arabia never had a western style democracy, Iran did. There are far more citizens of Iranian birth living in the US than Saudi-born. Oh, and Saudi Arabia has oil, and we defended them from Saddam in 1991. So, while we've had a historically acrimonious relationship with Iran, the same can't be said for Saudi Arabia.Dilbert_X wrote:
Find me a Fox News fan, or any American, who thinks Iran is awesome and we should be bombing the Saudis.
Thanks for trying to tell me how I should think though.
No one is asking the US to leave Afghanistan and attack the Saudis but this chummy behaviour only cripples your image worldwide.
i dont know anyone personally who thinks either is awesome.Dilbert_X wrote:
Find me a Fox News fan, or any American, who thinks Iran is awesome and we should be bombing the Saudis.
I think Ticia is mostly just pointing out how our interventionism has nothing to do with spreading democracy and everything to do with economics.JohnG@lt wrote:
It's not our job to police the world and fix all the injustices that abound. If Saudi's want to remove the theocracy then they should rebel, topple their government, and install a new one. Until then? Not my problem.Ticia wrote:
When Saudi Arabia abuses human rights constantly, has no real democratic freedoms and denies women their basic rights exactly like the Taliban regime… it is inconsistent and hypocritical.JohnG@lt wrote:
Well, let's see. Saudi Arabia never took hostages. Saudi citizens did mastermind 9/11, but that wasn't the state. Saudi Arabia never had a western style democracy, Iran did. There are far more citizens of Iranian birth living in the US than Saudi-born. Oh, and Saudi Arabia has oil, and we defended them from Saddam in 1991. So, while we've had a historically acrimonious relationship with Iran, the same can't be said for Saudi Arabia.
Thanks for trying to tell me how I should think though.
No one is asking the US to leave Afghanistan and attack the Saudis but this chummy behaviour only cripples your image worldwide.
Duh. You can't make people free over the barrel of a gun.Turquoise wrote:
I think Ticia is mostly just pointing out how our interventionism has nothing to do with spreading democracy and everything to do with economics.JohnG@lt wrote:
It's not our job to police the world and fix all the injustices that abound. If Saudi's want to remove the theocracy then they should rebel, topple their government, and install a new one. Until then? Not my problem.Ticia wrote:
When Saudi Arabia abuses human rights constantly, has no real democratic freedoms and denies women their basic rights exactly like the Taliban regime… it is inconsistent and hypocritical.
No one is asking the US to leave Afghanistan and attack the Saudis but this chummy behaviour only cripples your image worldwide.
