Why Is FOXNEWS Giving The Trayvon Martin Story Little To No Coverage?

I just turned to The FOXNEWS in time to hear the panel discussing Obama's birth certificate. The Spanish TV babe was just finishing up a tirade about Obama's birth certificate!!

No sooner did I post about it than The FOXNEWS manifest their nonsense.

That has GOT to be some kind of record.
 
I knew that CG was ditzy, but I didn't know she was tipsy!
Only a rampant drunkard and raging alcoholic could spew the swill she does on a daily and consistant basis.
billy-dee-lol-he-mad.jpg
 
Because they're not part of the State run media, they are not an extension of the Obama re-election campaign. Thus, they weren't given orders to run the same race bait story over and over to stir up racial divisions more. Thats exactly what the Hussein wants, he wants the chaos, he wants the outrage to be rampant throughout society, and the main stream media is happy to oblige.

True..FOX is state run media. But it's not part of anything Obama is doing. The Saudis run FOX.

So, owning a 7% share of a company means they 'run' Fox.... is that your assertion?

Seriously?

:lol: Sometimes, swallow, you take stupid to an rdean level. How can you not be embarrassed by that?

Naw..no swallow for you Sandy..

Aren't the construction workers near Piccadilly Circus enough for you? You still haul them two by two into the phone booths?

Man..your quick.
 
I just turned to The FOXNEWS in time to hear the panel discussing Obama's birth certificate. The Spanish TV babe was just finishing up a tirade about Obama's birth certificate!!

No sooner did I post about it than The FOXNEWS manifest their nonsense.

That has GOT to be some kind of record.

RATINGS are important, subject matter is not.
 
I just turned to The FOXNEWS in time to hear the panel discussing Obama's birth certificate. The Spanish TV babe was just finishing up a tirade about Obama's birth certificate!!

No sooner did I post about it than The FOXNEWS manifest their nonsense.

That has GOT to be some kind of record.

RATINGS are important, subject matter is not.
The Five is playing right now.
 
True..FOX is state run media. But it's not part of anything Obama is doing. The Saudis run FOX.

So, owning a 7% share of a company means they 'run' Fox.... is that your assertion?

Seriously?

:lol: Sometimes, swallow, you take stupid to an rdean level. How can you not be embarrassed by that?

Naw..no swallow for you Sandy..

Aren't the construction workers near Piccadilly Circus enough for you? You still haul them two by two into the phone booths?

Man..your quick.
Regardless, what she said stands. A single person's 7% interest in an entity does not equate to it being state run.

Well, at least in this dimension.
 
Link? Or did you pull that out of your ass?

Shareholders

In August 2005 the Murdoch family owned only about 29% of the company. However, nearly all of these shares were voting shares, and Rupert Murdoch retained effective control of the company. Nonetheless, John Malone of Liberty Media had built up a large stake, with about half of the shares being voting shares. Therefore, in November 2006, News Corporation announced its intention to transfer its 38.5 per cent managing interest in DirecTV Group to John Malone's Liberty Media; in return it bought back Liberty's 16.3% shares in News Corp., giving Murdoch tighter control of the latter firm.[33] Murdoch sold 17.5 million class A shares in December 2007.[34]
Prince Alwaleed bin Talal al-Saud of Saudi Arabia, through his Kingdom Holding Company, owns 7% of News Corp.'s shares, making Kingdom Holdings the second largest shareholder.[35][36][37]
Years after when Elektra Records was absorbed in 2004, News Corporation owned half of the re-issues from the record label company.
News Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the record, it is a Saudi, not 'the Saudis'.
Thank you for the link. But that info is from 2007, best I can tell. He may own more now. Or less. But I doubt that he would sell any. It's not like he needs the money.

A single share holder with 7% of the stock..is pretty huge. In any case..the other guy, Rupert, is in deep shit in Sandy's native country of Britain for spying on private citizens.

Wonder how much of Murdoch's spunk gets on her chin after he's done?
 
Link? Or did you pull that out of your ass?

Shareholders

In August 2005 the Murdoch family owned only about 29% of the company. However, nearly all of these shares were voting shares, and Rupert Murdoch retained effective control of the company. Nonetheless, John Malone of Liberty Media had built up a large stake, with about half of the shares being voting shares. Therefore, in November 2006, News Corporation announced its intention to transfer its 38.5 per cent managing interest in DirecTV Group to John Malone's Liberty Media; in return it bought back Liberty's 16.3% shares in News Corp., giving Murdoch tighter control of the latter firm.[33] Murdoch sold 17.5 million class A shares in December 2007.[34]
Prince Alwaleed bin Talal al-Saud of Saudi Arabia, through his Kingdom Holding Company, owns 7% of News Corp.'s shares, making Kingdom Holdings the second largest shareholder.[35][36][37]
Years after when Elektra Records was absorbed in 2004, News Corporation owned half of the re-issues from the record label company.
News Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the record, it is a Saudi, not 'the Saudis'.
Thank you for the link. But that info is from 2007, best I can tell. He may own more now. Or less. But I doubt that he would sell any. It's not like he needs the money.

Wiki is easy enough to update - should the share percentage have changed, I'm sure it would have been included.

The fact remains, you got shown to be a petty moronic whiner who clearly does not bother to fact check information. I do. Which is why I know that it is one Saudi, not 'the saudis'... and it is a mere 7% - hardly a controlling interest.

So, how come you're not accusing sallow of 'pulling' information 'out of his ass'? Because he's a liberal. Unlike myself. I'm a conservative, therefore you challenge my information. You are a dishonest and mindless hack... and a mindnumbingly boring poster.
 
I just turned to The FOXNEWS in time to hear the panel discussing Obama's birth certificate. The Spanish TV babe was just finishing up a tirade about Obama's birth certificate!!

No sooner did I post about it than The FOXNEWS manifest their nonsense.

That has GOT to be some kind of record.



LOL - really? - they're still talking about his birth certificate in March 2012? That is too funny.


I don't have cable. I miss out on so much!
 
So, owning a 7% share of a company means they 'run' Fox.... is that your assertion?

Seriously?

:lol: Sometimes, swallow, you take stupid to an rdean level. How can you not be embarrassed by that?

Naw..no swallow for you Sandy..

Aren't the construction workers near Piccadilly Circus enough for you? You still haul them two by two into the phone booths?

Man..your quick.
Regardless, what she said stands. A single person's 7% interest in an entity does not equate to it being state run.

Well, at least in this dimension.

He's already had input in the propaganda FOX spews..

Alwaleed bin Talal - SourceWatch
 
I just turned to The FOXNEWS in time to hear the panel discussing Obama's birth certificate. The Spanish TV babe was just finishing up a tirade about Obama's birth certificate!!

No sooner did I post about it than The FOXNEWS manifest their nonsense.

That has GOT to be some kind of record.



LOL - really? - they're still talking about his birth certificate in March 2012? That is too funny.


I don't have cable. I miss out on so much!
Now they're disccusing the Whitney Houston autopsy ruling of an accidental drowning...seems to be what this whole segment will be about.
 
I just turned to The FOXNEWS in time to hear the panel discussing Obama's birth certificate. The Spanish TV babe was just finishing up a tirade about Obama's birth certificate!!

No sooner did I post about it than The FOXNEWS manifest their nonsense.

That has GOT to be some kind of record.



LOL - really? - they're still talking about his birth certificate in March 2012? That is too funny.


I don't have cable. I miss out on so much!


Voting for the Republican nominee in November IS an option.
 
WRONG!!!!.....

work.6720086.1.sticker,375x360.im-as-mad-as-hell-and-im-not-going-to-take-this-anymore-v1.png
Mad can be motivating, but being in an extended state of anger does not foster rational thought.
I'm also calm as heck...and cool as a muddaHUSH-YO-MOUF!!

Boy I remember about 2 years and change ago when you and your types were all pro anger with the whole Tea-bagger movement and all.

Remember dem days?

:lol:
No, as I was never pro-anger - it doesn't foster rational thought. I was and am part of the Tea Party.
 
Si Modo, were the majority of the TP folk fostering and supporting anger as a motivating force for their movement. Yes or no?
 
Now the panel of The FIVE spent the last segment discussing some BOOM or noise in a random Wisconsin town. They faded to commercials with a segment about Obama's grade on gas prices.
 

Forum List

Back
Top