About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

News Corp. partners with Saudi prince who Fox News lambasted

December 04, 2009 9:21 am ET — 23 Comments

In 2001, several Fox News personalities criticized Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal -- who reportedly suggested that the United States' Middle East policy contributed to causing the 9-11 attacks -- and praised then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani for not accepting a $10 million disaster-relief donation from Al-Waleed. However, Rupert Murdoch has recently finalized a deal giving News Corp., which includes Fox News, a 10 percent stake in Al-Waleed's media conglomerate, Rotana, according to reports.

2001: Al-Waleed reportedly suggested U.S. policy contributed to 9-11

CNN: Giuliani refused donation after Al-Waleed suggested U.S. policies contributed to the September 11 attacks. An October 12, 2001, CNN.com article reported that "Mayor Rudy Giuliani said Thursday the city would not accept a $10 million donation for disaster relief from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal after the prince suggested U.S. policies in the Middle East contributed to the September 11 attacks." The article further noted:

"I entirely reject that statement," Giuliani said. "There is no moral equivalent for this [terrorist] act. There is no justification for it. The people who did it lost any right to ask for justification for it when they slaughtered 4,000 or 5,000 innocent people."

Prince Alwaleed gave the mayor a check after a Thursday morning memorial service at Ground Zero, the site of the World Trade Center towers destroyed in the attacks.

The prince offered his condolences to the people of New York, but after the ceremony he released a statement suggesting the United States "must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack."

"The check has not been deposited. The Twin Towers Fund has not accepted it," Giuliani said in a statement late Thursday.

 

The prince's statement said the United States "should re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stand toward the Palestinian cause."

Fox News personalities criticized Al-Waleed and praised Giuliani for not accepting the donation

Sean Hannity: Al-Waleed's statement was "such an egregious, outrageous, unfair offense that I would have nothing to do with his money either." On the October 22, 2001, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes (accessed via Nexis), Sean Hannity said, "[T]his is a man that blames the United States and their policies for the attack that took place on September 11th. That is such an egregious, outrageous, unfair offense that I would have nothing to do with his money either, and I applaud what Mayor Giuliani did. It showed a lot of guts and character."

Hannity: "This is a bad guy. Rudy was right to decline the money." On the December 13, 2005, edition of Hannity & Colmes (accessed via Nexis), while discussing a grant Al-Waleed gave Georgetown and Harvard universities, Hannity said: "This is a bad guy. Rudy was right to decline the money. Why would these universities take money from him?"

Mara Liasson: "[I]t was an outrageous statement and the mayor did the right thing and refused the money." Discussing Giuliani's decision to return the money on the October 11, 2001, edition of Fox News' Special Report (accessed via Nexis), Fox News contributor Mara Liasson said Al-Waleed's statement was "completely false," "outrageous," and that "the mayor did the right thing and refused the money."

Bill Sammon: "[I]t's blood money and we're better off without it." During the same discussion with Liasson, Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon said of the money, "[W]hen you think about it, upon reflection, you think, you know, this guy is essentially trying to buy legitimacy for his extreme views, which is, you know, that the American policy towards Israel is to blame for this attack on the World Trade Center, which, of course, is outrageous, as Mara says." He continued: "And so I think it was the right thing to turn it down. Especially when you think about $10 million, in this grand scheme of $800 million. I mean, that's less than 2 percent of that. And when you look at the generosity of the American people, you know, that $10 million could be made up by people who are outraged by this very story. So I don't think -- I think it's blood money and we're better off without it."

2009: News Corp. reportedly secured 10 percent stake in Al-Waleed's Rotana

Variety.com: The pact "will see News Corp. take a 10% stake in Rotana." According to a December 1 Variety article, Murdoch "closed his long-gestating deal for News Corp. to acquire a stake in Saudi Prince Waleed bin Talal's Rotana media conglom. ... The pact, first announced by Daily Variety at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival, will see News Corp. take a 10% stake in Rotana, with an option to acquire another 10%."

Al-Waleed "is a substantial investor in News Corp." The Variety article also said that the Rotana deal "deepens the strategic partnership between Rupert Murdoch and Prince Waleed, who is a substantial investor in News Corp.," and that Fox and Rotana "have a long-standing relationship."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by rwmacdonald2091 (December 04, 2009 9:50 am ET)
      1 1
      I can hardly wait for Hannity, Beck, and O'Rielly to rip into News Corp for being in bed with the terrorists. This will be a must watch for me tonight. As that right wing guy, Ben Stein says, "I'm giddy with excitement"

      Report Abuse
      • Author by raine315 (December 04, 2009 10:01 am ET)
        2  
        I bet they will not even mention it! When it comes to their fanbase- if Fox News does not mention it- it does not exist it never happened. So sadly many in America wont know about this
        Report Abuse
        • Author by sleepy joe (December 04, 2009 5:46 pm ET)
          1  
          Of course they're not going to metion it. They're not going to attack the people that pay them.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by bluestate69 (December 04, 2009 10:02 am ET)
      3 1
      this story combined with good jobless numbers = turmoil at fox news
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ronzorelli (December 04, 2009 10:48 am ET)
        1  
        If you consider MULTIPLE hundreds of thousands of people out of work still "GOOD" jobless numbers, #youmightbealibiot

        Perhaps, they're looking to work toward taking the news service over completely. Nah... that can't be.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by bluestate69 (December 05, 2009 7:26 pm ET)
             
          so, were you upset by the jobless numbers?? when an unemployment rate goes from 10.2 to 10.0, i believe that's good news for america. it's a positive trend, unless you're a angry partisan republican that wants to see this president fail so bad, that you would revel in bad economic news.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by raine315 (December 04, 2009 10:05 am ET)
      4 1
      Will Sarah Palin proclaim that Fox News has been pallin' around with "terrorist"?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Diosnomeama (December 04, 2009 10:06 am ET)
      1 1
      The prince's statement said the United States "should re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stand toward the Palestinian cause."
      That's actually one of the more rational things I heard someone say in the early days after 9/11.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Max Credits (December 04, 2009 10:15 am ET)
        1
      Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists:

      foxhannity@FOXNEWS.COM
      The recipient's mailbox is full and can't accept messages now. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please try resending this message later, or contact the recipient directly.


      Guess I'll my email here then:

      "This is a bad guy. Rudy was right to decline the money."

      Dear Mr. Hannity,

      As you know, shortly after 9/11, you, along with several other Fox News personalities harshly criticized Saudi Prince Al-Waleed as you applauded former Mayor Giuliani for not accepting a $10 million disaster-relief donation from the Prince.

      In fact, on the October 22, 2001, you said, "this is a man that blames the United States and their policies for the attack that took place on September 11th. That is such an egregious, outrageous, unfair offense that I would have nothing to do with his money either, and I applaud what Mayor Giuliani did. It showed a lot of guts and character."

      Now, just eight years later, you and your employer have partnered with the same Saudi Prince. News Corp., which pays your salary, now owns a 10% stake in Prince Al-Waleed's media conglomerate.

      Perhaps, rather than bitching about NBC and GE, you can find a little time on your show to address the fact that your salary is now being paid by a guy who "blames the United States and their policies for the attack that took place on September 11th."

      Sincerely,
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (December 04, 2009 4:49 pm ET)
           
        Yeah,
        Nice e-mail Vic. Conservatives now walk in and out of the land of hypocrisy without any thought at all. You can only do that when you know you have a tremendous media advantage.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by dave (December 04, 2009 10:28 am ET)
        5
      I don't see why this is an issue. Rudy declining a check from a guy who advised that we somehow had this coming while his city was burning seemed appropriate. Murdoch having a private sector business relationship with the same guy to make money is capitalism, and appropriate. Private sector companies do business deals with countries we don't like everyday.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ronzorelli (December 04, 2009 10:51 am ET)
           
        agreed
        Report Abuse
      • Author by epkklk851 (December 04, 2009 12:04 pm ET)
        1  
        This is true, but it just goes to show you that Ruprick is all about the money and nothing about truth, fairness, balance, or public service. He is all about the Benjamins.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Max Credits (December 04, 2009 12:15 pm ET)
           
        Can you see why this would be an issue for Hannity and his "Great American Panel" if his paycheck was not involved?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by sleepy joe (December 04, 2009 5:50 pm ET)
             
          It should be an issue for Hannity. But it won't be. As long as he's paid, he's happy. Doesn't matter where the money comes from.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by jediknight65 (December 04, 2009 12:18 pm ET)
           
        perhaps so but it doesn't look good at all.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Frankeee (December 04, 2009 3:08 pm ET)
         
      I really hate to burst your bubbles, people. I'm not a troll but I am saying that this doesn't show hypocrisy on anybody's part....YET. Not on Murdoch's part, though he really should have checked to see whether his network ever did a story on him. It would have been prudent. Not on the part of Hannity because he doesn't make business decisions at NewsCorp. Before you flip out, consider whether anyone would let SEAN HANNITY make business decisions for a multi-billion dollar corporation. There you see?
      It's not hypocritical on any of the guests.
      YET
      If they don't comment on it at all, it will be the HEIGHT of hypocrisy. If Fox New's employers tell them not to run a story and Fox complies, they will be showing a lack of "guts and character" for journalism
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Frankeee (December 04, 2009 3:19 pm ET)
         
      Also, I just want to say that, according to the statements on this page, the man didn't outright say America was responsible. He said that the United States "must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack." and "should re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stand toward the Palestinian cause." He isn't saying the actions were the fault of the US GOVERNMENT. He said that some policies of the US GOV in the Middle East influenced those people's opinions of America and its government. These terrorists perceived the Saudi government's, the homeland of most of the hijackers, rejection of Osama bin Laden's army's offer to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait and asking the world to do it, specifically the US GOV, to be a rejection of traditional customs and values of the region and an embrace of Western Imperialism, whether that exists or not. They saw the Bosnian Serbian war, a war where other Christians and Catholics massacred Muslims, albeit for probably reasons more to do with power and ethnicity and less religion, to be an attack by Christians against Islam. And then there are the economic policies to talk about. I am not saying that made the US GOV responsible in any way. I am saying that is why the underlying motivation for the planners to attack America. I think what this prince says, on the surface, is that certain things made this attack more possible or likely to happen because of the GOV. I said the GOVERNMENT and not the country or the people
      Report Abuse
    • Author by princeofwheels (December 04, 2009 3:25 pm ET)
         
      Using the ConLogic at its own game, I wonder....

      What if Geogre Soros partnered with this Prince? Would there be outrage on the RIGHT?

      P.S. That prince is no relation.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by princeofwheels (December 04, 2009 3:25 pm ET)
         
      Using the ConLogic at its own game, I wonder....

      What if Geogre Soros partnered with this Prince? Would there be outrage on the RIGHT?

      P.S. That prince is no relation.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bvb720 (December 05, 2009 3:04 am ET)
        1
      Everyone of these comments are sickening. Continue drinking Kool Aid and call me in the morning.

      I am sick of hearing about Fox this Fox that. Concentrate on other stories that have more to do with all media, not just the conservative side.

      Bias? You are the biased ones.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.