Saudi Prince

[dusted]

Saudi Prince Buys AOL and Priceline

Mon Mar 11, 8:37 AM ET

DUBAI (Reuters) - Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed has bought more than $1 billion worth of shares in Citigroup, AOL Time Warner and Priceline.com over the past six months, his company said on Monday.

The prince, among the world's wealthiest men, bought $500 million in Citigroup, $450 million in AOL Time Warner and $100 million in Priceline.com. With around $10 billion in Citigroup, Alwaleed was already the biggest shareholder in the bank.

"At about $43, Citi's share price was at too attractive a price," the prince said in a statement issued by his company Kingdom Holdings.

The statement said the prince also found AOL Time Warner price attractive at $23 a share.

"I believe in the power of the AOL brand and I am already a shareholder in this global media giant. Therefore when the price reached a lucrative level, we decided to increase our stake," the prince said, without giving exact figures on his AOL holdings.

He also described Priceline.com as one of the few Internet companies that "survived the turbulence witnessed by the Internet arena."

His holdings in Internet commerce company Priceline.com currently stand at 5.4 percent, he added.

Alwaleed, a nephew of Saudi Arabia's King Fahd, has a personal fortune estimated at $20 billion, the bulk of which is invested in the United States.

But I thought it was the Jews that controlled the media.

[breaksny]

O brother. I never condoned the monarchy, but while we're @ it, the entire way the media business is structured esp in the US nowadays is relatively oligarchic as is. He's just following the example Ted Turner, Ruper Murdoch, and whoever r on the boards of and hold the largest stakes in Viacom, Universal Vivendi, Disney and other dominant congolmerates set before them. Hate him cuz he's an autocrat whose government has had in the past links to al qaeda and such, not b/c of his ethnicity. But if your upset in a double standard about anti-Judaism/semitism in the media business as elsewhere in life, yes it's tragic like any other form of racism and should be condemned and fought. Can't disagree with you there.

[dusted]

For your info, this is the same Prince that Guiliani rejected the $10,000,000 check from.

[sonicinfusion]

Originally posted by dusted

Saudi Prince Buys AOL and Priceline

Mon Mar 11, 8:37 AM ET

DUBAI (Reuters) - Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed has bought more than $1 billion worth of shares in Citigroup, AOL Time Warner and Priceline.com over the past six months, his company said on Monday.

The prince, among the world's wealthiest men, bought $500 million in Citigroup, $450 million in AOL Time Warner and $100 million in Priceline.com. With around $10 billion in Citigroup, Alwaleed was already the biggest shareholder in the bank.

"At about $43, Citi's share price was at too attractive a price," the prince said in a statement issued by his company Kingdom Holdings.

The statement said the prince also found AOL Time Warner price attractive at $23 a share.

"I believe in the power of the AOL brand and I am already a shareholder in this global media giant. Therefore when the price reached a lucrative level, we decided to increase our stake," the prince said, without giving exact figures on his AOL holdings.

He also described Priceline.com as one of the few Internet companies that "survived the turbulence witnessed by the Internet arena."

His holdings in Internet commerce company Priceline.com currently stand at 5.4 percent, he added.

Alwaleed, a nephew of Saudi Arabia's King Fahd, has a personal fortune estimated at $20 billion, the bulk of which is invested in the United States.

But I thought it was the Jews that controlled the media.

He is first of all not a ROYAL PRINCE !!!

HE is the same prince which even owns more then half of apple computer share!!!

and he is the same guy WHO OFFERED 1 million dollar to gullian in NYC while saying the sep 11 bullshit happened cause of USA policy towards middle east!! and the money was turned down !! but he did have the balls to say that loud and clear !!!

The guy is a business man not a media player!!

alrite

[dusted]

He who owns the media, controls the media.

[dusted]

He who pays the piper, calls the tune.

[breaksny]

I c where you're going with this, or could anyway. Maybe yer right and he's anti-jewish. I dunno what I can say, it's tragic and maybe he shouldn't have the right to hold such a controlling stake in the companies. I don't agree with the possible implication that this makes his peace initiative irrelevant or hostile to Israel however. But I don't expect to be able to change yer mind, so just go ahead and make that connection if u want.

[dusted]

Just keep an eye on CNN.

[breaksny]

The BBC is more balanced than any of the American media imo in regard to the conflict. It's also far more coherent in general. They accompany the Israeli military on missions regularly, but they've done the same with Palestinian groups as well. I only watch CNN sometimes cuz I think Fox and the NBC channels r worse.

[dusted]

Originally posted by breaksny

The BBC is more balanced than any of the American media imo in regard to the conflict. It's also far more coherent in general. They accompany the Israeli military on missions regularly, but they've done the same with Palestinian groups as well. I only watch CNN sometimes cuz I think Fox and the NBC channels r worse.

Oh really, have you checked out their coverage of the north of Ireland? They operated on state-imposed censorship when it came to that. Whenever Sinn Fein members (a political party opposed to the British presence in the north of Ireland) appeared on BBC tv, their voices were dubbed over, to circumvent the laws.

The BBC is a state owned media, therefore by its very nature, is not going to be balanced.

[breaksny]

Northern Ireland aside, they're certainly more balanced on the Middle East and much of the rest of the world than the American channels r, but whatever go on watching the American channels. I don't care. Their correspondents clearly don't seem to have the same balance or background knowledge, let alone coherence, of the brits.

[dusted]

How can you say that? How can they be balanced on one thing, and censor another?

The very fact that they blatantly censored a topic that was unfavorable to the British government, shows that they are not to be entirely trusted.

My advice is to not depend on tv for your news. Try reading instead. (and I'm not talking about the NY times either. You have a computer, there's no excuse.)

[sassa]

He is a prince...what do you mean,he's not a prince? Damn those Saudis...they're all so damn rich...

[breaksny]

Whatever dusted. I don't need you to lecture me on where I get my news from. The BBC is more balanced than the american media in the conflict, if you don't see it then go read yer own media. How can I not say that when it's patently obvious to me the other channels r worse? And as to the tv thing, we were discussing tv media, I simply laid out the channel I thought was the best for world news coverage. That has nothing to do with what I read. Get over better than though self in thinking u know more than I do.

[ghhhhhost]

Any foreign media reveals more than CNN..CNN is a fuckin tool used by the government to spread disinformation. personally if i could find Kristinana Amanpour i would kick the shit out of her with her own leg..the shit she reports on is ridiculous..bullshit artist..i mean shes married to the that Rubin guy from the Clinton administration..i hope that sheds a little light as to how closely the gvt and media are related

[dusted]

Basically, you think the BBC is better because they are more left wing, and you agree with that point of view.

Your grasp of the conflict indicates that you haven't read much about it, that you are getting all your info from the tv news, which only deals with the here and now, but doesn't give the origins of the conflict, which happens to be necessary to understand it.

That probably explains why you don't know anything pre-1967, cause thats all they talk about in the news.

[dusted]

I think you're just an anglophile, thats why you think the BBC is so great, but I'll tell you this: I just spent a month in England and the people there didn't know anything about anything.

The coverage on the war was abysmal, sandwiched between endless football games and stories about petty corruption in the government. I would say they devoted about 5 minutes a day to the war. Almost all their news was local. Hardly any world news at all. It was just as bad as the networks here.

The biggest topic on the news was trying to convince the people that they should switch to the Euro. Their news is totally British and Eurocentric, unless their doing some puff piece about Africa or something. Total crap.

[breaksny]

No basically I don't. I think they're more balanced. I don't think the American television networx (cable included), as well as most of the print/internet media, is as balanced. I think it's more conservative, reflective of the fact that the center of America's political culture is significicantly to the right of most of the rest if of the industrialized world. I see BBC news reporters grilling both sides of the issue around the world, when they're not giving each side its own chance to speak at length about their positions respective, often conflicting, positions. I don't c that as frequently in the American television media, and I certainly don't see the same intelligence or smoothness of delivery among American tv journalists. It's not that they're more pro-palestinian or liberal, it's more moderate. The only place I can think of that's as moderate frankly is pbs. Nightline might be another exception, but they're gonna be off the air soon so there goes that outlet. It would be nice to have one world news channel, american or not, that does straight news round the clock. Talk shows are fine, but the whole MTVization of american television basically dumbs it down and simplifies the world in a way that doesn't provide the coverage people in Europe @ least has.

[nrgy112]

This prince is no stand up guy either, while he's making billions and spending billions on stocks, many of his people are living in poverty, it's not the saudis that are rich, it's the princes and their families who made deals with oil companies that exploit the middle east for their natural resources. And as for this whole jews or arabs owning the media, the only media mogul I know that's jewish is Mike Bloomberg, Every other mogul and basically 95% of the world's richest people are Christian, and Christians only make up a 1/5 of the world's population, so no Jews don't run the media at all, and neither do arabs.

[tribal]

jews and arabs dont control the media? who does then? one man! Howard Stern <- the shmuck thats responsible for all the media propaganda hehehe.

seriously, breaksny has a point, i ve been reading both cnn and bbc and bbc is by far more balanced than american media. plus they got Radio 1 and Essential Mix, how can you beat that?

[breaksny]

The thing is I dunno what part of the BBC dusted is even referring to. If he means the BBC in England, ya I had a tory-supporting british friend in hs who said they're relatively "liberal," according to the american meaning of the word (since the british meaning connotes libertarianism to americans). But BBC World and the BBC world service isn't that biased, even on the Northern Ireland conflict. They interview Gerry Adam or other Shin Fein representatives whenever the they do a feature on the conflict, as well as David Trimble, or other Unionists. They're also far more thorough. I don't see the American media devoting a full 30 minute news program, for example, to the current presidential elections in Zimbabwe, despite having been banned from the country by the Mugabe's government. And while in that case their coverage does seem slanted to the opposition and Blair's side, they've likewise regularly given Mugabe administration respresentatives air-time to get out their views on the electoral process and what they think is Blair's "neo colonial racism," something I can't agree with. Likewise during the recent commonwealth summit, they interviewed many other African heads of state and foreign ministers who effectively opposed Blair's recommendation for expulsion of Zimbabwe from the commonwealth b/c of all sorts of alleged campaigning, registration, and polling irregularities, not to mention harrassment of the opposition, and the government's rather violent land redistribution program.

[malone]

I would have to say that the BBC isn't too bad as far as its world coverage goes. At least they try to cover a good swarh of current affairs. Whether it's balanced or not is another story. But who's balanced anyway? Everyone has their own angle; journalists included. I do think the BBC is valuable from the standpoint of getting a Eurpean perspective on events. It is government owned though, so one ought to be alert to that. Then again, in the good old U.S the majority of the media is corporate owned so that's bound to impact the slant the information gets before it gets to you. If it gets to you.

.

[sonicinfusion]

Originally posted by dusted

Saudi Prince Buys AOL and Priceline

Mon Mar 11, 8:37 AM ET

DUBAI (Reuters) - Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed has bought more than $1 billion worth of shares in Citigroup, AOL Time Warner and Priceline.com over the past six months, his company said on Monday.

The prince, among the world's wealthiest men, bought $500 million in Citigroup, $450 million in AOL Time Warner and $100 million in Priceline.com. With around $10 billion in Citigroup, Alwaleed was already the biggest shareholder in the bank.

"At about $43, Citi's share price was at too attractive a price," the prince said in a statement issued by his company Kingdom Holdings.

The statement said the prince also found AOL Time Warner price attractive at $23 a share.

"I believe in the power of the AOL brand and I am already a shareholder in this global media giant. Therefore when the price reached a lucrative level, we decided to increase our stake," the prince said, without giving exact figures on his AOL holdings.

He also described Priceline.com as one of the few Internet companies that "survived the turbulence witnessed by the Internet arena."

His holdings in Internet commerce company Priceline.com currently stand at 5.4 percent, he added.

Alwaleed, a nephew of Saudi Arabia's King Fahd, has a personal fortune estimated at $20 billion, the bulk of which is invested in the United States.

But I thought it was the Jews that controlled the media.

dusted dont why dont you do a favour and stop posting topics about politics .. cause its no use ..it only creats drama and thats it!!

But if you like drama then pls feel free to post about jews and arabs .. I really could not give a flying fuck to both of them !!!

and I hope ppl living in USA dont even !! cause it has nothing to do with us !!

I just hope for in the world !!

[malone]

"They're also far more thorough. I don't see the American media devoting a full 30 minute news program, for example, to the current presidential elections in Zimbabwe...."

I would think the reason for this state of affairs has more to do with the links between the two countries than necessarily because that's how the BBC do business. After all, if the bottom falls out of Zimbabwe it's most likely the Brits who will be stuck holding the baby; at least as far as the remaining whites are concerned.

[malone]

"dusted dont why dont you do a favour and stop posting topics about politics .. cause its no use ..it only creats drama and thats it!!

But if you like drama then pls feel free to post about jews and arabs .. I really could not give a flying fuck to both of them !!!

and I hope ppl living in USA dont even !! cause it has nothing to do with us !! "

The sentiment is understandable if you don't have an interest in the subject. But, my God, look at all the other topics available to you on the board. Is it really cramping you style, knowing that somewhere on the board politics is being discussed? Give me a break!!