Tuesday, February 09, 2016
Jan 11

Written by: Diana West
Friday, January 11, 2013 5:21 AM 

Pt. 1 is here.

How could this -- Alwaleed's editorial interference to omit "Muslim" from "Muslim rioting" in a Fox crawl in 2005 --  not have been the begining?

That's the question I weigh in this week's column, testing it in those perplexing omissions in News Corp.'s coverage of the Gore deal -- omissions regarding Al Jazeera's strong ideological linkage with and political bias toward the Muslim Brotherhood, and omissions regarding Muslim Brotherhood leading figure Yusef Al Qaradawi and his role at Al Jazeera.

But there is a more important connection to make and Fox omission to note.

In the column and related news report, I discuss Al Risala, an Islamic channel that both Alwaleed and -- through Murdoch's 18.97 percent ownership of Al Risala's parent company Rotana -- Murdoch own. (Rotana is Alwaleed's Arabic media company.) On the "supreme advisory board" of Al Risala sits Abdullah Omar Naseef. Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy has decribed Naseef as "a major Muslim Brotherhood figure involved in the financing of al-Qaeda." McCarthy's quotation comes from the stunning expose he wrote last summer documenting the ties between Secretary of State Clinton's top aide Huma Abedin and leading Muslim Brotherhood figures and fronts, which include Abedin's family members They also include Naseef. (Read the evidence here.)

The Abedin-Naseef-MB-Clinton morass is another story Fox News et al have ignored. And I mean, ignored. Fox, however, is not alone. All media, with rare exceptions, have blunted their curiosity and turned their eyes from this hot, hot story that, at the minimum, demands questions and answers from Abedin and Clinton to determine whether we are be looking at a case of hostile penetration and influence similar to when Alger Hiss was the right-hand-man of Secretary of State Edward Stettinius, or, at the very least, a case of reckless security clearance. (NB: the Washington Examiner refused to run my columns on the subject when Rep. Michele Bachmann was rightfully drawing attention to the subject last summer.) And while all media are guilty of a kind of professional abdication, Fox bears special responsibility due to its ripple-effect-influence -- much like the New York Times over the MSM -- on other conservative media. It bears a special blame, too, due to its compromised ownership.

Through Alwaleed (and Murdoch), we now know there is, in effect, what we might think of as one degree of separation between Fox and Naseef, who, among other things, is founder of Rabita Trust. As McCarthy's report notes, Rabita Trust is "formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization under American law due to its support of al-Qaeda."

Does any of this bear on Fox's failure to investigate, for example, the Abedin story? To alert Americans to the stealth jihad of the Muslim Brotherhood? How could it not have bear on the omission of such stories? I believe we are watching Alwaleed's "Fox Effect." We don't report so you can't decide -- or know anything about it.

Meanwhile, I wonder whether the Alwaleed-Naseef and, by extension, -Murdoch relationship actually breaks any existing US anti-terrorism law. If not, there remains something stinkingly morally wrong with this relationship existing among the owners of a flagship US news company, whose headquarters, don't forget, are in New York City. Where this whole story began.

It's time for Murdoch to divest now.

Privacy Statement  |  Terms Of Use
Copyright 2012 by Diana West