1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Saudi royal boasts of changing Fox News coverage

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Inky_Wretch, Jul 2, 2010.

  1. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    He didn't like a riot in France being called a Muslim riot. So he called Murdoch and got it changed.

  2. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Who prevented CNN, NBC, CBS, etc., from referring to them as Muslim riots?
  3. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    Did they even cover them? Do you have proof they didn't call them Muslim riots?

    And WTF does that smokescreen have to do with the Fair & Balanced folks kowtowing to the whims of an investor?
  4. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    So you think they should have continued to call them Muslim riots?

    I do. it's an accurate description of what was happening. If FOX really changed their coverage because of a phone call to Murdoch, then that's crap.

    But, as I recall, the rest of the press, when they covered, them referred to them at "youth" riots.

    Occasionally that the residents of the areas were predominantly immigrants from North Africa.

    The fact that the youths & immigrants were nearly exclusively Muslim was not a focus of any of the news coverage that I can recall other than on FOX (and talk radio, etc).
  5. sportsguydave

    sportsguydave Active Member

    How do you know that the youths and immigrants were "almost exclusively Muslim," YF? Were you there? Did you interview any of them? If not, you're making an unsupportable assertion. Your obviously biased view does not constitute facts.

    Calling them "Muslim riots" just serves to further the anti-Muslim hysteria that's a big part of Fox's right-wing agenda. Good for the Saudi for calling them out on it, but ...

    Were the Saudi billionaire just an ordinary viewer and not an investor, I'd have no problem with what he did. But an investor doesn't just call up as an "ordinary viewer." When you do the right thing for the wrong reason, it's still a problem.
  6. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    What religion do you think that immigrants from North Africa and their descendants are?

  7. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    I can't believe you're even disputing this.

    If you want to argue that their being Muslim is irrelevant, that's fine. But there's no denying that the participants are/were Muslim.

    Here's the AP on what triggered the flare up in '05:

    I could post 100 more links to back up that fact.
  8. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Pretty funny too that Inky's all worked up about a press release from 2005.

    Has that anger just been bottled up until now?

    I'm glad you got it out.
  9. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Did the Saudi Royal Family also get to Eric Holder?

  10. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    What anger? I'm not angry. I'm amused that Fox News, the channel for Real Americans, bows to the whims of a Saudi billionaire.

    I just came across it today.
  11. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    I'm kidding about the anger. But posting a press release from 2005 isn't really breaking news.

    I'm guessing there have been a lot of examples of press malfeasance and bowing to pressure since then.
  12. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Hey Inky, why won't Disney/ABC release Path to 9/11 on DVD?

    Think pressure from the Clintons has anything to do with it?

Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page