From: Sean Kenny (seankenny@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Sat Mar 29 2003 - 12:01:45 MST
On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 14:22, John K Clark wrote:
> "gts" <gts_2000@yahoo.com>
>
> >It's highly sensationalized news reporting. Kinda' exciting, I
> >would agree, but hardly unbiased!
>
> Fox makes it quite clear that they hope the American side wins, but at least
> they put all their cards on the table. Would you rather have a network that
> pretended to be neutral but really was not; would you rather have a network
> that suffered from moral imbecility to such a degree that it really did see
> a moral equivalence between the American and Iraqi side?
Yes, Fox want the US to win at the behest of their masters voice, heard
worldwide, but if we want to talk about moral equilavency lets look at
what he has to say about the war
<quote>
Most revealing of all was Murdoch's reference to the rationale for going
to war, blatantly using the o-word. Politicians in the United States and
Britain have strenuously denied the significance of oil, but Murdoch
wasn't so reticent. He believes that deposing the Iraqi leader would
lead to cheaper oil. "The greatest thing to come out of this for the
world economy...would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any
tax cut in any country."
He went even further down this road in an interview the week before with
America's Fortune magazine by forecasting a postwar economic boom. "Once
it [Iraq] is behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil
which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else."
</quote>
exactly how many human lives is this worth to him?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 29 2003 - 12:09:07 MST