... UK tabloid The Sun. No, I'm not making this up. Why grant an interview to a newspaper best known for its Page 3 girls? Because it's owned by Rupert Murdoch, that's why.
The Republicans are in so tight with Murdoch it's kind of sickening. Before the Reagan administration, non-citizens were not allowed to own even a single media broadcast station, radio or tv, and ciitizens were only allowed to own a single broadcast outlet within an FCC designated broadcast area. Reagan had the FCC change its rules for non-citizen ownership specifically for his good buddy Ruport Murdoch, And in recent years the ownership rules have been relaxed to the point that there's no limit to how many stations a single entity can own within a broadcast area. How much more can the Republicans to for Murdoch? Why are they so enamored of this guy? I don't understand it.
who cares about W? i want to read ""Man begins 12-day sausage, bean and chip bath to promote Brit food"
Re: Re: Bush grants exclusive one-on-one interview with... Actually, the only US news publication to get a one-on-one in 2003 was McPaper, which is kinda fitting given the average attention span of its readers. Speaking of McPaper, here's one of my favorite SNL jokes, from A. Whitney Brown: "We live in a nation of 25 million illiterates. I read that in USA Today. That's a scary thought, one out of ten adult Americans can't even read USA Today. What are they all going to do in life? They can't all write for it."
Well, I guess this article shoots down theories of cronyism. Fox isn't even in the running for ownership of the Iraqi News Network. Actually - giving the contract no-bid to Murdoch would be something I'd support. Who is better qualified to whip up Iraqi public opinion based on lies and mistruths? Unless of course Murdoch's success is based on pandering only to areas where there is a sizable minimaly educated proletariat christian conservative community (Fox news, his English papers, etc...). In which case, maybe its better to not be in Iraq. Would any american really agree with what is said on Imam al-O'Reilly's nightly show? http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0346/cotts.php In October, the Pentagon began soliciting bids for a $100 million renewable contract to run the Iraqi Media Network (IMN). The project is overseen by the U.S. military occupation (a/k/a Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA) and is rising out of the infrastructure of Saddam Hussein's state-run news network. The dream is for IMN to become a "world-class" media operation, Of about two dozen potential bidders, the following are among those said to be still in play: the BBC, through its World Service Trust; the British TV channel ITN; the Rendon Group, which has helped the U.S. with previous "public diplomacy" efforts; the Harris Group; and the Lebanese Broadcasting Company.
Considering how Republicans in general and conservatives in particular can't get a fair shake from most big media in the country, why shouldn't they be agreeable to an individual that actually gives them the time of day. Should every media big shot have to be PR man for the Democrats?