Print

Print


----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Regarding my "claims" about Rupert Murdoch and PBS:
 
1. Fox may be on the record "publically." That means nothing. How many
   politicians are "on the record" about things and then vote the other
   way citing "new evidence?" And this is not an elected official we
   are talking about -- this is a network position, dictated by a board
   of directors who would rather not say anything they REALLY want,
   the better to keep their competition off guard.
 
   Murdoch wants PBS funding cut so that the smaller, totally dependent
   PBS outlets in smallers markets (where FOX is on the much weaker UHF dial)
   will go under and he can buy the licenses dirt cheap and conver them
   to VHF Fox outlets.
 
   If I lived in the deep south, I'd be "on the record" as pro life.
   But "off the record," I would continue to be pro choice. Got how it works?
 
2. The Fox Network would not be buying other stations in their markets.
   Murdoch's base company would. To say Murdoch doesn't own multiple
   stations now is preposterous. What do you call FX, the cable network
   he owns?
 
   Murdoch knows that 500 channels may be coming, so he wants his piece.
 
   He has done this before. In the 80s, he approached Margaret Thatcher
   about some British topic. Magically, she had a large book deal.
 
3. As far as Lars Erik Nelson's column being "speculation," all he did was
   list a series of events in a chronological order. The reader was allowed
   to fill in the blanks. Are you saying you don't believe what your mind
   is telling you happened, even if it appears logical?
 
   jeff cohen
   [log in to unmask]
   [log in to unmask]