2 hours, 1 minute ago
 |
Add Entertainment - Reuters to My Yahoo! |
Posted on 04/25/2003 1:56:06 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
|
2 hours, 1 minute ago
|
|
By Duncan Martell
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Ted Turner said on Thursday too few people owned too many media organizations and called rival media baron Rupert Murdoch a warmonger for what he said was Murdoch's promotion of the U.S. war in Iraq (news - web sites).
"He's a warmonger," Turner said in an evening speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco of Murdoch, whose News Corp. Ltd. owns the fast-growing Fox News Channel. "He promoted it."
Fox News Channel has been the most popular U.S. cable news network during the conflict, trumping AOL Time Warner Inc.'s CNN, which Turner started more than two decades ago and came to prominence with its blanket coverage of the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites).
Asked by an audience member for his thoughts on Fox's larger ratings share than CNN's, Turner said, "Just because your ratings are bigger doesn't mean you're better."
"It's not how big you are, it's how good you are that really counts," Turner said, drawing hoots from the audience.
Turner, who has pledged to give $1 billion to the United Nations (news - web sites) and is a vocal proponent of population control and nuclear-arms elimination, criticized the concentration of ownership of the vast majority of U.S. television networks, radio and TV stations and newspapers in a few corporations.
"The media is too concentrated, too few people own too much," Turner said.
Asked whether he would again try to launch a new network, Turner, who is the vice chairman of AOL Time Warner and has been critical of the merger of AOL and TimeWarner, said: "No. I think the space is filled with the people already there.
FIVE COMPANIES
"There's really five companies that control 90 percent of what we read, see and hear. It's not healthy."
Earlier on Thursday, BBC Director General Greg Dyke said U.S. broadcasters' coverage of the Iraq war was so unquestioningly patriotic and so lacking in impartiality that it threatened the credibility of America's electronic media.
Dyke singled out for criticism Fox News Channel and Clear Channel Communications Inc., the largest operator of radio stations in the United States.
"Personally, I was shocked while in the United States by how unquestioning the broadcast news media was during this war," Dyke said in a speech at a University of London conference.
After Turner's initial remarks, the moderator for the question and answer session noted that Turner would not be able to comment on the ongoing federal investigations into AOL Time Warner.
The moderator had scarcely finished her statement when he leaned into the microphone and said: "I can say one thing. As the largest shareholder and the biggest shareholder (of the company), it's been brutal."
Turner said he also liked bison.
"I got 35,000 of them," Turner said in response to a question about bison. "I do eat them. You've got to eat."
The final question of the evening to Turner: What will be his epitaph.
"I have nothing more to say," Turner said. "And that's what it is."
We'll find out soon enough. CNN file in Baghdad?
Is that where the term " getting buffaloed" comes from?
Is that where the expression "getting humped" comes from?
No? Then why 'mr.' turner, do you praise the cuban government, who has 100% control of the media in cuba?
"We'll find out soon enough. CNN file in Baghdad?"
We already know that Dannie Rather-Biased and his fellow Socialist DemonRATS at CBS got their kick-back fer their long-established PRO-Tyrant, PRO-Soddom coverage when Rather-Biased's EXCLUSIVE interview garnered 60 Minutes' highest ratings in years!! Kronkite's Heir picked up right where his feckless predecessor left off...attempting to spin the Liberation of an OppressedPeople into a Clash between Tyrants!!
The EffeteEliteMed'yuhWhore'd--including Turner's wife, HanoiJane--shall ROT IN HELL for their role in defending and promoting the MurderousTyrantRegimes in both VietNam and Iraq!!
FReegards...MUD
Yep...and even if they did, I'd doubt their sincerety. These in-bred MORONS actually believe the krap they spew.
FReegards...MUD
ROFLMAO***!!!
I feel so sorry for Ted . /sarcasm
in post #1.
Sort of a -- wonder if I should have said more in the title -- second thought!
These high level leftist seem to have a totally different logic than those of us that populate this board.
They are truly wierd!
Your link doesn't quite work, has a couple of extra characters on the right.
This will work I think:
___________________________________
Wednesday, April 23, 2003
SADDAM HUSSEIN couldn't buy George Galloway! Er, actually, Saddam couldn't afford him:
Saddam Hussein rejected a request from George Galloway for more money, saying that the Labour backbencher's "exceptional" demands were not affordable, according to an official document found by The Daily Telegraph in Baghdad.
The letter from Saddam's most senior aide was sent in response to Mr Galloway's reported demand for additional funds. This was outlined in a memorandum from the Iraqi intelligence chief disclosed yesterday in The Daily Telegraph.
ALL THE LATEST ON BRITISH BAGHDADDY GEORGE GALLOWAY.
His lawyers have been mobilised, and at least one Labour MP offers support:
George Galloway, the Labour backbench MP, was locked in a battle to save his controversial political career as he launched a libel action against the Daily Telegraph last night.
Mr Galloway's lawyers acted as the paper accused him of taking as much as 370,000 pounds a year from Saddam Hussein in return for support for the fallen dictator.
"I think it's a miraculous set of circumstances that the Daily Telegraph walks through all the rubble of Baghdad and manages to find a file on George Galloway," said anti-war MP Jeremy Corbyn.
The same question is raised by intelligence experts:
Most intelligence experts claimed yesterday that the documents obtained by the Daily Telegraph are probably the real thing.
However, eyebrows were raised at the fact that they were unearthed with relative ease by a reporter for a British broadsheet which would naturally be critical of George Galloway.
The Guardian has a handy guide to the Galloway matter, as does the London Times.
David Blair, author of the original report, tells how he came to discover the damning documents:
The air was thick with choking clouds of dust and the looters were hammering and shouting in the rooms and corridors around us. Then my translator happened upon an orange box file with the Arabic label "Britain". Its interior was lined with tigerskin wallpaper.
Four blue folders, each stamped with the Iraqi eagle, lay inside. Opening the first, I happened upon George Galloway's letter nominating Fawaz Zureikat as his representative in Baghdad. Another folder contained a letter from Sir Edward Heath thanking the Iraqi representative in London for attending a luncheon in Salisbury.
Two more box files were labelled "Britain". Others were labelled "United States", "Security Council" and "France". Each appeared to contain all the appropriate documents that had crossed the desk of an Iraqi foreign minister.
Meanwhile, George now remembers that he just might have been in Baghdad close to the date cited in the documents:
Labour MP George Galloway - accused of being on Saddam Hussein's payroll - has admitted he could have been in Baghdad with the Iraqi Foreign Minister for Christmas 1999.
Mr Galloway told BBC's Newsnight he could have been in Baghdad with Tariq Aziz for Christmas 1999, just over a week before the memo is dated. The MP claimed he could not remember if he had visited then or the following December.
See here for clips that may assist George's memory. Other George-related money trouble looms, reports The Times:
The Attorney-General is considering action against the money-raising appeal set up by George Galloway which is at the centre of allegations that he was bankrolled by Saddam Hussein.
As the Labour MP began legal action for libel over the claims that he had received 375,000 pounds a year from the Baghdad regime, The Times has learnt that Lord Goldsmith, QC, is studying a separate complaint against him. It is based on an article in The Times showing that Mr Galloway promised to spend all the money raised by the Mariam Appeal on treating sick Iraqi children, but later used it to fund his travelling expenses.
The Mariam Appeal is highlighted in the purported Iraqi intelligence documents found in a Baghdad ministry.
Further from The Times on the Mariam Appeal:
George Galloway is notoriously sensitive and secretive about who paid for his globetrotting campaign to lift United Nations sanctions against Saddam Hussein.
Even close associates cannot say with confidence who was really paying for the Mariam Appeal and who was benefiting financially from its immeasurable pot of cash.
Mr Galloway chose not to register the appeal as a charity, so avoiding the scrutiny and transparency that would reassure the public about who was subsidising his foreign travel.
And The Sun delivers this almighty beating:
The world has produced some evil, twisted men throughout history. Saddam Hussein is one of them.
Treacherous Labour MP George Galloway is another.
There have long been questions over the way a nonentity backbencher like Galloway could afford his lavish lifestyle of fast cars and fast women.
His constant travel, always first class, could never be funded by an MP's pay or from proceeds of his litigious pursuit of so-called defamation claims.
Galloway is a silver-tongued bully who has always been surrounded by a cloud of suspicion over his shifty activities, his manipulation of other people's cash and his readiness to punch anyone he could not sue.
He left a slippery trail of scandal wherever he went, from the finances of the once mighty charity War on Want to the funding of his local constituency Labour Party.
A congenital liar, his favourite defence trick was total denial. If that failed, he would claim he had been misquoted.
The Sun's fence-sitting is uncharacteristic. More on George soon.
_____________________________________________
Thursday, April 24, 2003
GEORGE GALLOWAY says others may have profited from Iraq, but never he:
George Galloway conceded last night that intermediaries in his fund-raising activities could have siphoned off money from Saddam Hussein - but insisted he had never done so.
In The Independent, defiant George offers this spirited defence:
The Telegraph says I traded in oil and food under the oil-for-food programme. To whom did I sell this oil (which, incidentally, is done through the United Nations Sanctions Committee and subject to the most forensic scrutiny)? And what happened to the proceeds? In other words, where is the money? From whom did I buy the food that I allegedly sold to Iraq? Which food? When? Where?
I am genuinely surprised that lawyers on a major national newspaper appear not to have asked these basic questions. Does anyone seriously believe that I, one of the most observed and scrutinised political figures in Britain, could have been in receipt of such sums of money without attracting the attention of the security services?
The Telegraph has yet more George-Iraq news:
Saddam Hussein sought to protect George Galloway by severing the Iraqi intelligence service's contacts with the Labour backbencher, according to an official document found by The Daily Telegraph in Baghdad.
This letter, found in the files of the Iraqi foreign ministry, explained that any disclosure of Mr Galloway's "relationship" with the Mukhabarat, which operated as both secret police and intelligence service, would do great harm to his political career.
And The Independent analyses George's earlier evasions:
He claims he has "never seen a barrel of oil, let alone owned, bought or sold one". Anyone receiving commission would not necessarily have to have done so. He later tells the Telegraph: "I have never solicited nor received money from Iraq for our campaign against war and sanctions." That, in itself, does not address any personal benefit.
-----------------------------------
Friday, April 25, 2003
IS THERE a single document in Iraq that doesn't have George Galloway's name on it?
A fresh set of documents uncovered in a Baghdad house used by Saddam Hussein's son Qusay to hide top-secret files detail multimillion dollar payments to an outspoken British member of parliament, George Galloway.
The most recent - and possibly most revealing - documents were obtained earlier this week by the Monitor. The papers include direct orders from the Hussein regime to issue Mr. Galloway six individual payments, starting in July 1992 and ending in January 2003.
The three most recent payment authorizations, beginning on April 4, 2000, and ending on January 14, 2003 are for $3 million each. All three authorizations include statements that show the Iraqi leadership's strong political motivation in paying Galloway for his vociferous opposition to US and British plans to invade Iraq.
George is having a little SARS crisis of his own:
An Iraqi general attached to Hussein's Republican Guard discovered the documents in a house in the Baghdad suburbs used by Qusay, who is chief of Iraq's elite Guard units.
The general, whose initials are "S.A.R.," asked not to be named for fear of retribution from Hussein's assassins. He said he raided the suburban home on April 8 with armed fighters in an effort to secure deeds to property that the regime had confiscated from him years ago. He said he found the new Galloway papers amid documents discussing Kuwaiti prisoners and Hussein's chemical warfare experts, and information about the president's most trusted Republican Guard commanders.
Meanwhile the Telegraph reports that George has lately changed his tune on the original documents, and also runs a friendly Q & A with Saddam's Scottish suckboy. He faces many more Qs in coming days.
Rather off topic !
The best part of your true prediction, is that the crowd down with'em will be HUGE. A Great Satan box office blockbuster success.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.