QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Nov 16 2006, 07:43 PM) [snapback]261281[/snapback]
You took that personal, huh?
Figgers.
Without a lap dog isolation is intense.
Full Version: Media Bias thread
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148
You took that personal, huh?
Figgers.
Without a lap dog isolation is intense.
The "Cock of the walk"
If it sounds like one, looks like one, and acts like one.
It probably is one.
If it sounds like one, looks like one, and acts like one.
It probably is one.
QUOTE(Bee @ Nov 16 2006, 08:09 PM) [snapback]261306[/snapback]
The "Cock of the walk"
Tricks for Bix?
QUOTE(Bee @ Nov 16 2006, 10:00 PM) [snapback]261296[/snapback]
It was personal.
Backdoor insults are pretty low. The person that engages in them is typically too cowardly to be honest about it. And yes, that was directed at you.
BOO!
Huh?
QUOTE(Repub_Bub @ Nov 16 2006, 10:10 PM) [snapback]261307[/snapback]
Tricks for Bix?
Psst. Buzzard. ^^^^
QUOTE
Clear Channel Agrees to $18.7B Buyout
By ELIZABETH WHITE
AP Business Writer
SAN ANTONIO (AP) -- Three weeks is how long it took radio giant Clear Channel Communications Inc. to accept a buyout offer led by two private equity firms after announcing in late October that it was considering "strategic alternatives."
And while the nation's biggest radio station operator has left the door open a crack in case something better comes along, it agreed to an $18.7 billion offer from Thomas H. Lee Partners LLC and Bain Capital Partners LLC.
In addition to paying $37.60 in cash for each Clear Channel share, the buyers will assume an additional $8 billion in debt.
The transaction would be one of the biggest deals to take a company private, and illustrated the vast sums that buyout specialists have been able to assemble to acquire public companies.
San Antonio-based Clear Channel's shares jumped $1.24, or 3.6 percent, to close at $35.36 on the New York Stock Exchange Thursday after rising earlier to a new 52-week high of $35.88.
The company has until Dec. 7 to solicit competing proposals. Another bid for Clear Channel had been expected from Providence Equity Partners, the Blackstone Group and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
"Basically they are telling you that we have a firm offer and a firm deal, but we are not going to get locked into it yet," said Frederick Moran, a Boca Raton, Fla.-based analyst for Stanford Financial Group.
The company said in a regulatory filing that it doesn't expect any senior management changes or significant layoffs.
Mark Mays will remain CEO while Randall Mays, his brother, will stay on as chief financial officer. Their father Lowry Mays, the chairman, will continue to have an active role, the company said.
"Clear Channel is an exceptional media franchise that is well-positioned to grow thanks to the solid foundation the Mays family has created," John Connaughton, a managing director at Bain Capital, said in a statement.
It's not yet clear how much the Mays stand to make in the deal. Clear Channel said Thursday that three members of senior management agreed to "significantly" reduce payments that would be made on a change of control.
A Clear Channel spokeswoman declined to elaborate. The Mays family owns about 7 percent of the company.
James Goss, media and entertainment analyst for Barrington Research, said the price of $37.60 was in line with expectations. The figure represents a 10.2 percent premium over shares' closing price on Wednesday.
"I don't think there's anything that's happened that's been totally surprising," Goss said.
Clear Channel also said it plans to sell 448 of its radio stations, all located outside the top 100 markets, as well as its 42-station television group, which are also located in smaller markets. Collectively the properties made up less than 10 percent of the company's revenues last year.
The acquisition is not dependent on the sale of those assets, the company said.
Clear Channel owns or operates 1,150 radio stations and is the largest operator of radio stations in the country.
Kit Spring, an analyst for Stifel Nicolaus & Co. Inc., wrote in a note that shareholders should reject the initial offer.
"(Clear Channel's) assets could command a much higher price if sold piece by piece, in our view," the note said.
Moran said the other "wild card" in Thursday's announcement was the fate of Clear Channel Outdoor, a major operator of billboard and bus-stop ads. Clear Channel owns a majority of the outdoor business, which trades separately.
Outdoor advertising company JCDecaux last week expressed interest in acquiring Clear Channel Outdoor.
Thursday's announcement doesn't include any provisions for taking the public portion of Clear Channel Outdoor private, the company said. However, Clear Channel's majority ownership of Clear Channel Outdoor will transfer to the private equity group.
The company's directors have approved the agreement, with the board insiders recused from the vote.
Once stock market darlings, radio stocks have fallen out of favor on Wall Street in recent years amid sluggish advertising revenues and competition from the boom in portable listening devices like Apple Computer Inc.'s iPods and the emerging growth of satellite radio.
Since January of 2000, Clear Channel stock has fallen from a high of more than $90.
Clear Channel has instituted several measures to try to win listeners back, including cutting back on the number of commercials. However other operators have yet to embrace its "less is more" strategy.
Clear Channel was founded in 1972 and benefited greatly from the loosening of media ownership rules, which allowed more radio stations to be held by a single owner in each market.
The deal would rank behind KKR's 1988 buyout of RJR Nabisco Inc., which still is the biggest going-private deal ever at $25.1 billion. It would also trail two other deals announced earlier this year. Those included the $21.8 billion buyout of airport development company BAA PLC and the $21.3 billion buyout of hospital company HCA Inc.
Clear Channel said it expects to close the acquisition by the fourth quarter of next year.
And beyond that?
"Maybe they won't be private forever," said Goss. "That's always a possibility (going public again) because private equity usually has an exit strategy. They don't really buy it just to own it forever. ... If it were public again it wouldn't look the same day as it did the first time around."
By ELIZABETH WHITE
AP Business Writer
SAN ANTONIO (AP) -- Three weeks is how long it took radio giant Clear Channel Communications Inc. to accept a buyout offer led by two private equity firms after announcing in late October that it was considering "strategic alternatives."
And while the nation's biggest radio station operator has left the door open a crack in case something better comes along, it agreed to an $18.7 billion offer from Thomas H. Lee Partners LLC and Bain Capital Partners LLC.
In addition to paying $37.60 in cash for each Clear Channel share, the buyers will assume an additional $8 billion in debt.
The transaction would be one of the biggest deals to take a company private, and illustrated the vast sums that buyout specialists have been able to assemble to acquire public companies.
San Antonio-based Clear Channel's shares jumped $1.24, or 3.6 percent, to close at $35.36 on the New York Stock Exchange Thursday after rising earlier to a new 52-week high of $35.88.
The company has until Dec. 7 to solicit competing proposals. Another bid for Clear Channel had been expected from Providence Equity Partners, the Blackstone Group and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
"Basically they are telling you that we have a firm offer and a firm deal, but we are not going to get locked into it yet," said Frederick Moran, a Boca Raton, Fla.-based analyst for Stanford Financial Group.
The company said in a regulatory filing that it doesn't expect any senior management changes or significant layoffs.
Mark Mays will remain CEO while Randall Mays, his brother, will stay on as chief financial officer. Their father Lowry Mays, the chairman, will continue to have an active role, the company said.
"Clear Channel is an exceptional media franchise that is well-positioned to grow thanks to the solid foundation the Mays family has created," John Connaughton, a managing director at Bain Capital, said in a statement.
It's not yet clear how much the Mays stand to make in the deal. Clear Channel said Thursday that three members of senior management agreed to "significantly" reduce payments that would be made on a change of control.
A Clear Channel spokeswoman declined to elaborate. The Mays family owns about 7 percent of the company.
James Goss, media and entertainment analyst for Barrington Research, said the price of $37.60 was in line with expectations. The figure represents a 10.2 percent premium over shares' closing price on Wednesday.
"I don't think there's anything that's happened that's been totally surprising," Goss said.
Clear Channel also said it plans to sell 448 of its radio stations, all located outside the top 100 markets, as well as its 42-station television group, which are also located in smaller markets. Collectively the properties made up less than 10 percent of the company's revenues last year.
The acquisition is not dependent on the sale of those assets, the company said.
Clear Channel owns or operates 1,150 radio stations and is the largest operator of radio stations in the country.
Kit Spring, an analyst for Stifel Nicolaus & Co. Inc., wrote in a note that shareholders should reject the initial offer.
"(Clear Channel's) assets could command a much higher price if sold piece by piece, in our view," the note said.
Moran said the other "wild card" in Thursday's announcement was the fate of Clear Channel Outdoor, a major operator of billboard and bus-stop ads. Clear Channel owns a majority of the outdoor business, which trades separately.
Outdoor advertising company JCDecaux last week expressed interest in acquiring Clear Channel Outdoor.
Thursday's announcement doesn't include any provisions for taking the public portion of Clear Channel Outdoor private, the company said. However, Clear Channel's majority ownership of Clear Channel Outdoor will transfer to the private equity group.
The company's directors have approved the agreement, with the board insiders recused from the vote.
Once stock market darlings, radio stocks have fallen out of favor on Wall Street in recent years amid sluggish advertising revenues and competition from the boom in portable listening devices like Apple Computer Inc.'s iPods and the emerging growth of satellite radio.
Since January of 2000, Clear Channel stock has fallen from a high of more than $90.
Clear Channel has instituted several measures to try to win listeners back, including cutting back on the number of commercials. However other operators have yet to embrace its "less is more" strategy.
Clear Channel was founded in 1972 and benefited greatly from the loosening of media ownership rules, which allowed more radio stations to be held by a single owner in each market.
The deal would rank behind KKR's 1988 buyout of RJR Nabisco Inc., which still is the biggest going-private deal ever at $25.1 billion. It would also trail two other deals announced earlier this year. Those included the $21.8 billion buyout of airport development company BAA PLC and the $21.3 billion buyout of hospital company HCA Inc.
Clear Channel said it expects to close the acquisition by the fourth quarter of next year.
And beyond that?
"Maybe they won't be private forever," said Goss. "That's always a possibility (going public again) because private equity usually has an exit strategy. They don't really buy it just to own it forever. ... If it were public again it wouldn't look the same day as it did the first time around."
(all) http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CLE...-11-16-12-18-56
The dreaded Clear Channel franchise is in play.
Sounds like the family will cash out at about $700 million to a billion. They deserve it. They came up with the idea and made it happen.
Right. They destroyed local radio, local music, and poorly served the public interest.
They deserve something, alright.
They deserve something, alright.
Yeah. I can think of a few things.
Tyrrell
is on WJ this AM
and the guy, as
always, has his
facts in order!
From Rumsfeld to Gates
By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
Published 11/16/2006 12:08:18 AM
If he were as smooth as silk, he would still have plenty of enemies in Washington. The most difficult kind of bureaucracy to reform is the military. Not that Rumsfeld is not a gentleman, but he is also a man of action in time of war. Thanks to his rapid response and great strategic vision, Osama bin Laden is woebegone in a remote cave or perhaps crepe suzette for the worms. As for the tyrant Saddam Hussein, the worms have their eyes on him too. I hope those hungry worms have powerful digestive tracts. So Don Rumsfeld disturbed the settled state of routine among some fatuous officers at the Pentagon. He has won the hearts of the fighting troops and of intelligent officers who recognize the vigor and intelligence that he has brought to our national security. Those who recognize that we are more secure today than we were prior to 9/11 will be forever grateful. Those who do not will remain forever ignorant.
Now in comes Bob Gates, and as is the custom in this town there is wild speculation. He is Bush I's guy. He is James Baker's guy. He is the CIA's guy. He is coming in from the presidency of Texas A & M to pull the plug on our involvement in Iraq. Actually he is Bush II's appointee, and though I shall only mildly speculate I suspect he will do as his boss tells him. That seems to mean he will apply a fresh set of eyes to Iraq.
I have known Gates for almost two decades and I can tell you whose guy Gates was originally. It must have been sometime in 1985 when my friend, Director of Central Intelligence Bill Casey, had me to lunch at his office and introduced me to someone he thought very highly of, a protege of his, Bob Gates. Bill always had proteges, but Gates was one of his favorites. Bill recognized that Gates was intelligent, principled, and understood the Soviet Union. In fact, Gates had done graduate work in the same department as I had, Indiana University's Department of History, under a distinguished Soviet specialist who became a mentor to me and to The American Spectator's Editorial Director Wladyslaw Pleszczynski.
From that point on I watched Gates with especial interest and dined with him from time to time. Anyone that thinks Gates lacks grit or an independent mind is mistaken. He was clear-headed on the Soviets and will be clear-headed on the Islamofascists. I well remember when he was drafting a speech in late 1989 or 1990 in which he presciently expressed doubt as to the effectiveness of General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev's reforms. Though the content of the speech was suppressed, it got into the public prints. And do you know who suppressed it? James Baker.
Gates, the first career CIA officer to become Director of Central Intelligence, is a dedicated public servant. In his last months at CIA he used to speak of his relish for a quiet retirement outside Washington during which he might read and reflect on the world. He also gave me and Wlady the best explanation of why in Operation Desert Storm our forces did not roll into Baghdad. We underestimated Saddam's control of the country. We thought the regime would fall of its own weight. That estimate was wrong. If I recall the term Gates used, he said it turned out that the Saddam regime was a "mom and pop" regime tightly controlled by the tyrant's family. Obviously, Gates was right. Perhaps this explains why Bush II did not wait a second time for the defeated regime to fall.
Now Gates is back to serve the country and everyone should wish him well.
R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator, a contributing editor to the New York Sun, and an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute. His most recent book is Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House (Regnery Publishing).
is on WJ this AM
and the guy, as
always, has his
facts in order!
From Rumsfeld to Gates
By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
Published 11/16/2006 12:08:18 AM
WASHINGTON - - Modern bureaucracy is the spine of the modern state. The modern state would not be as useful as it is without bureaucracy or as wasteful or as lethargic. Reforming bureaucracy is the great challenge facing the greatest reformers, and that is why Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld will be assessed by historians as a great secretary of defense. He initiated over a hundred far-reaching reforms, and made policy changes that have made the American military probably the most effective in the world. Thanks to him our ground forces are more rapidly deployable. The diverse branches of the military work together more closely. And ballistic missile defense is much advanced.
If he were as smooth as silk, he would still have plenty of enemies in Washington. The most difficult kind of bureaucracy to reform is the military. Not that Rumsfeld is not a gentleman, but he is also a man of action in time of war. Thanks to his rapid response and great strategic vision, Osama bin Laden is woebegone in a remote cave or perhaps crepe suzette for the worms. As for the tyrant Saddam Hussein, the worms have their eyes on him too. I hope those hungry worms have powerful digestive tracts. So Don Rumsfeld disturbed the settled state of routine among some fatuous officers at the Pentagon. He has won the hearts of the fighting troops and of intelligent officers who recognize the vigor and intelligence that he has brought to our national security. Those who recognize that we are more secure today than we were prior to 9/11 will be forever grateful. Those who do not will remain forever ignorant.
Now in comes Bob Gates, and as is the custom in this town there is wild speculation. He is Bush I's guy. He is James Baker's guy. He is the CIA's guy. He is coming in from the presidency of Texas A & M to pull the plug on our involvement in Iraq. Actually he is Bush II's appointee, and though I shall only mildly speculate I suspect he will do as his boss tells him. That seems to mean he will apply a fresh set of eyes to Iraq.
I have known Gates for almost two decades and I can tell you whose guy Gates was originally. It must have been sometime in 1985 when my friend, Director of Central Intelligence Bill Casey, had me to lunch at his office and introduced me to someone he thought very highly of, a protege of his, Bob Gates. Bill always had proteges, but Gates was one of his favorites. Bill recognized that Gates was intelligent, principled, and understood the Soviet Union. In fact, Gates had done graduate work in the same department as I had, Indiana University's Department of History, under a distinguished Soviet specialist who became a mentor to me and to The American Spectator's Editorial Director Wladyslaw Pleszczynski.
From that point on I watched Gates with especial interest and dined with him from time to time. Anyone that thinks Gates lacks grit or an independent mind is mistaken. He was clear-headed on the Soviets and will be clear-headed on the Islamofascists. I well remember when he was drafting a speech in late 1989 or 1990 in which he presciently expressed doubt as to the effectiveness of General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev's reforms. Though the content of the speech was suppressed, it got into the public prints. And do you know who suppressed it? James Baker.
Gates, the first career CIA officer to become Director of Central Intelligence, is a dedicated public servant. In his last months at CIA he used to speak of his relish for a quiet retirement outside Washington during which he might read and reflect on the world. He also gave me and Wlady the best explanation of why in Operation Desert Storm our forces did not roll into Baghdad. We underestimated Saddam's control of the country. We thought the regime would fall of its own weight. That estimate was wrong. If I recall the term Gates used, he said it turned out that the Saddam regime was a "mom and pop" regime tightly controlled by the tyrant's family. Obviously, Gates was right. Perhaps this explains why Bush II did not wait a second time for the defeated regime to fall.
Now Gates is back to serve the country and everyone should wish him well.
R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator, a contributing editor to the New York Sun, and an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute. His most recent book is Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House (Regnery Publishing).
I turned it off because I thought he was getting ready to service Rumsfeld sexually right there in the studio. What an ass kisser and a lying moron.
Rumsfeld will be known as the worse Defense Seretary we have ever had, hands down.
The fact that he likes and endorses Gates concerns me.
Rumsfeld will be known as the worse Defense Seretary we have ever had, hands down.
The fact that he likes and endorses Gates concerns me.
QUOTE(Bee @ Nov 17 2006, 04:52 AM) [snapback]261365[/snapback]
Right. They destroyed local radio, local music, and poorly served the public interest.
They deserve something, alright.
They deserve something, alright.
Heh, Clearchannel here is the only local talk. NPR sure as hell doesn't do anything to let locals get involved. Al Franken wouldn't know where Tucson was unless he could bankrupt the Boys Club here.
QUOTE(davisął @ Nov 16 2006, 06:47 PM) [snapback]261239[/snapback]
Tell us about morals and values.
O'Reilly Tries to Loofah Away Fox Stench
billoreilly_111606_FRESH.jpg
FOX AFFILIATE O'Reilly
Bill O'Reilly got his falafels in a bunch last night over news that O.J. Simpson will explain precisely how he didn't-but-might butcher his ex-wife and her friend—on a Fox prime-time special. Said the frequently flabbergasted superpundit:
"Here's a man many believe did kill those two Americans, Nicole Brown Simpson being mother of his two children. Yet Simpson is participating in a project that is exploiting the murders. Shamefully, the Fox Broadcasting Unit is set to carry the program, which is simply indefensible, and a low point in American culture. For the record, Fox Broadcasting has nothing to do with the Fox News Channel."
"Those two Americans" WTF is that all about? Americans killing Americans? These clowns have taken the uber patriot thing way too far.
Its funny too this pretend outrage when they are the ones that have most covered the Duke "rape case"
And that Alabama girls disappearance down in Aruba or where ever.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Nov 17 2006, 10:56 AM) [snapback]261424[/snapback]
Heh, Clearchannel here is the only local talk. NPR sure as hell doesn't do anything to let locals get involved. Al Franken wouldn't know where Tucson was unless he could bankrupt the Boys Club here.
well, you're the exception to the rule. They've killed it everywhere else. Thems the facts.
QUOTE(Mizilus @ Nov 17 2006, 10:26 AM) [snapback]261430[/snapback]
"Those two Americans" WTF is that all about? Americans killing Americans? These clowns have taken the uber patriot thing way too far.
Its funny too this pretend outrage when they are the ones that have most covered the Duke "rape case"
And that Alabama girls disappearance down in Aruba or where ever.
Hey miz, read the rest. This guy is just desperate.
Rock bottom has arrived as O.J. Simpson is being paid to speculate about the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman — murders a civil court ruled he committed.
As you may know, Simpson will reportedly receive $3.5 million to detail how he would have murdered the two Americans if he had did it.
Since Nicole was the mother of his two children, the horror of this is evident to any decent person. But FOX TV and a publisher believe they can make money on the project, so it's on. Add to that the Kansas late-term abortion situation, where hundreds, perhaps thousands of viable babies are being terminated by a doctor named George Tiller. Combined with Simpson, you now have two atrocities front and center before the American public.
Whoa bill, you want to link these two totally unrelated subjects? Why?
So what are we going to do about it?
Don't expect any help from the elite media. It is largely ignoring the Simpson situation and yesterday, The New York Times editorialized that any investigation into Tiller's action is a gross assault on privacy and legal rights.
Of course, babies have no legal rights in the eyes of The New York Times. So it's up to us, the American people, to deal with the collapse of our culture. This is no longer about fictional torture movies or gangster rap — terrible forms of entertainment. This is about real human beings being butchered and Americans profiting from those deaths. Remember, Tiller charges $5,000 to terminate a baby.
In ancient Rome, the society collapsed when Romans basically said no boundaries, any brutality is acceptable. We have almost reached that point in America.
So here's what I'm going to do as a citizen. I'm not going to watch the Simpson show or even look at the book. I'm not even going to look at it. If any company sponsors the TV program, I will not buy anything that company sells — ever.
If every American walked away from the O.J. garbage, it wouldn't happen. If every American demanded a full exposition of Dr. Tiller's activities, he would be forced to stop.
So it's on us. What kind of a country do we want? Remember that question if you are tempted to watch the Simpson special.
And that's the Memo.
The way he makes the leap from OJ Simpson to the abortions is a fine example of rightwing acrobatics.
Most Ridiculous Item of the Day
As you may know, we are investigating why the brutal murder of baby Jason Midyette has not been prosecuted in Boulder, Colorado.
Well, a University of Colorado journalism professor, Len Ackland, has an opinion on the subject. He told "The Daily Camera" that some news outlets are exploiting the baby's death for ratings — that would be us.
Professor Ackland, with all due respect, is ridiculous, irresponsible and callous to boot. Another example following Ward Churchill of how out of control things are at U.C. Boulder.
You've got a dead baby, sir. Justice needs to happen, OK?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,230180,00.html
"Kramer's" Racist Tirade -- Caught on Tape
Posted Nov 20th 2006 8:30AM
by TMZ Staff
Filed under: Train Wrecks
WARNING: WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO SEE IS PROFANE AND RACIAL
Michael Richards exploded in anger as he performed at a famous L.A. comedy club last Friday, hurling racial epithets that left the crowd gasping, and TMZ has obtained exclusive video of the ugly incident.
Richards, who played the wacky Cosmo Kramer on the hit TV show "Seinfeld," appeared onstage at the Laugh Factory in West Hollywood. It appears two guys, both African-American, were in the cheap seats playfully heckling Richards when suddenly, the comedian lost it.
The camera started rolling just as Richards began his attack, screaming at one of the men, "Fifty years ago we'd have you upside down with a f***ing fork up your ass."
Richards continued, "You can talk, you can talk, you're brave now motherf**ker. Throw his ass out. He's a nigger! He's a nigger! He's a nigger! A nigger, look, there's a nigger!"
The crowd is visibly and audibly confused and upset. Richards responds by saying, "They're going to arrest me for calling a black man a nigger."
One of the men who was the object of Richard's tirade was outraged, shouting back "That's un-f***ing called for, ain't necessary."
After the three-minute tirade, it appears the majority of the audience members got up and left in disgust.
Attempts to reach Richards' reps were unsuccessful.
Richards Racial Rant -- Play Video
Will he be treated as harshly as Mel Gibson?
Posted Nov 20th 2006 8:30AM
by TMZ Staff
Filed under: Train Wrecks
WARNING: WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO SEE IS PROFANE AND RACIAL
Michael Richards exploded in anger as he performed at a famous L.A. comedy club last Friday, hurling racial epithets that left the crowd gasping, and TMZ has obtained exclusive video of the ugly incident.
Richards, who played the wacky Cosmo Kramer on the hit TV show "Seinfeld," appeared onstage at the Laugh Factory in West Hollywood. It appears two guys, both African-American, were in the cheap seats playfully heckling Richards when suddenly, the comedian lost it.
The camera started rolling just as Richards began his attack, screaming at one of the men, "Fifty years ago we'd have you upside down with a f***ing fork up your ass."
Richards continued, "You can talk, you can talk, you're brave now motherf**ker. Throw his ass out. He's a nigger! He's a nigger! He's a nigger! A nigger, look, there's a nigger!"
The crowd is visibly and audibly confused and upset. Richards responds by saying, "They're going to arrest me for calling a black man a nigger."
One of the men who was the object of Richard's tirade was outraged, shouting back "That's un-f***ing called for, ain't necessary."
After the three-minute tirade, it appears the majority of the audience members got up and left in disgust.
Attempts to reach Richards' reps were unsuccessful.
Richards Racial Rant -- Play Video
Will he be treated as harshly as Mel Gibson?
http://newsbusters.org/node/9165
Defining Media Bias: Suddenly Discovering Murtha's Abscam Tapes After Election
Posted by Tim Graham on November 19, 2006 - 07:40.
For about a year, John Murtha was portrayed by the liberal media as a bold Marine hero of the anti-war movement. So why did they almost never mention Murtha's sleazy role as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam probe? And why is it important now? If the question was Murtha's fitness to be House Majority Leader, surely it was known that Murtha was running for that post before the midterm elections. The media withholding this story line until it fit with the timing of the Democratic Party's mainstream defines a liberal media bias. It was certainly considered bad form when our CNSNews.com wrote about it in January:
Since Murtha's Nov. 17, 2005, call for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, one CNN anchor has called him "one of the most highly respected members of Congress," the Associated Press has referred to Murtha as "one of Congress' most hawkish Democrats," and ABC News has noted that he is "a decorated marine who served in Vietnam."
But a search of the Nexis online database by Cybercast News Service found only three newspaper articles over the past two months connecting Murtha with the FBI's Abscam (short for "Arab scam") sting operation that led to the arrest of several congressmen for accepting bribes...
In his Friday, Jan. 13, response to the Cybercast News Service investigation, Murtha confined his reply to the controversy surrounding his military service and did not address the accusations surrounding Abscam.
"Questions about my record are clearly an attempt to distract attention from the real issue, which is that our brave men and women in uniform are dying and being injured every day in the middle of a civil war that can be resolved only by the Iraqis themselves," Murtha wrote in an email response.
Defining Media Bias: Suddenly Discovering Murtha's Abscam Tapes After Election
Posted by Tim Graham on November 19, 2006 - 07:40.
For about a year, John Murtha was portrayed by the liberal media as a bold Marine hero of the anti-war movement. So why did they almost never mention Murtha's sleazy role as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam probe? And why is it important now? If the question was Murtha's fitness to be House Majority Leader, surely it was known that Murtha was running for that post before the midterm elections. The media withholding this story line until it fit with the timing of the Democratic Party's mainstream defines a liberal media bias. It was certainly considered bad form when our CNSNews.com wrote about it in January:
Since Murtha's Nov. 17, 2005, call for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, one CNN anchor has called him "one of the most highly respected members of Congress," the Associated Press has referred to Murtha as "one of Congress' most hawkish Democrats," and ABC News has noted that he is "a decorated marine who served in Vietnam."
But a search of the Nexis online database by Cybercast News Service found only three newspaper articles over the past two months connecting Murtha with the FBI's Abscam (short for "Arab scam") sting operation that led to the arrest of several congressmen for accepting bribes...
In his Friday, Jan. 13, response to the Cybercast News Service investigation, Murtha confined his reply to the controversy surrounding his military service and did not address the accusations surrounding Abscam.
"Questions about my record are clearly an attempt to distract attention from the real issue, which is that our brave men and women in uniform are dying and being injured every day in the middle of a civil war that can be resolved only by the Iraqis themselves," Murtha wrote in an email response.
QUOTE
November 21, 2006
Al-Jazeera in the no-fluff zone of eye-opening network news
By PIERRE TRISTAM
ESSAYS
It's Sunday morning. I've been at the computer, watching al-Jazeera's new English-language all-news channel. (It's not available on television in the United States, as it is in the rest of the world; we'll get to that in a moment.) I'm not bored or driven insane as I am by most TV news. Network news here is self-absorbed and simplistic. If it's not happening in the United States or doesn't relate to the collective colonic, it doesn't rate attention. There are exceptions. But they're islets of glitter in oceans of sludge.
Consciously directed at a Western audience, al-Jazeera's focus is on what the American eye ignores, or prefers not to see, especially in that Arab-Islamic world that keeps reshaping our own even as we profess not to understand why. It's flawlessly produced, unassuming and the most blessed no-fluff zone on the air.
So far this morning I've watched a show called "Everywoman," a newsmagazine program that featured a segment about the slow evolution of rape laws in backwoods Indonesia (where, as in other places where Islamic law is more predatory than protective, women take the blame for being raped and face more ostracism or punishment than legal recourse); and another about Nada Zeidan, the Gulf's first woman race-car driver, who sounds and looks more interesting than any 10 NASCAR men put together.
One of the news-hours I watched included reports from Darfur and Gaza, and a long piece on how Hezbollah is deliberately shoving Lebanon back toward civil war. The segment included a live, tough interview from Beirut of Hassan Fadlallah, spokesman and news director for Hezbollah's al-Manar television (banned in the United States, France and Spain). To American viewers, merely giving groups like Hezbollah room to speak is an indication of sympathy. To al-Jazeera, ignoring them is an indication of stupidity, especially since Hezbollah's ilk are driving the Mideastern agenda more than neocons ever managed. Might as well understand their motives. That's not sympathy. It's common sense.
The same goes for the next segment. Here's how the anchor set it up (after his mention of 52 killed in Iraq "so far on Sunday"): "Let's take a closer look now at one of the groups fighting in Iraq. It's called the Islamic Army. It's been responsible for kidnappings and attacks on American troops. It's a Sunni organization and the stated aim of it is to drive out all foreign influence from Iraq, be it from Iran or from the United States. Well, al-Jazeera has obtained pictures of the group in training. Iraq correspondent Hoda Abdel-Hamid has our exclusive report." Cut to Abdel-Hamid's voice-over as footage shows hooded men training in a rural setting: "Some call them insurgents or terrorists. They describe themselves as a national resistance movement. Born out of occupation, the soldiers of the Islamic Army pride themselves on being Iraqi. None of their fighters, they say, are foreigners. Their aim: To expel any foreign fighter from Iraq."
Further footage shows the new recruits training in ambushes, kidnappings, "tactical instructions to hit enemy helicopters," rescue operations, then a graduation ceremony "as a new class of fighters is ready to pick up arms." The segment is one-sided. It quotes only one "spokesman of Islamic Army in Iraq" (his face is oddly blanked out, even though he's identified as Ibrahim al-Shamary). But when is the last time an American network interviewed an insurgent to balance out what, let's admit it, has been three years of inaccurate tripe from military and academic spokesmen this side of reality?
My favorite story of the day, an affecting, 60 Minutes-like piece the late Ed Bradley might have done, was called "Being Osama" -- the story of five Canadian citizens of Arab descent unfortunately named Osama, and how their names have been Borat-like triggers of latent racism and hatred among Westerners. "It's a very common name in the Middle East. And here, too," one of them, a composer, says as the image cuts to Osama bin Laden shooting his Kalashnikov, then back to the composer: "But it's evil." Al-Jazeera, alleged bin Laden sympathizer, shows you how.
To watch al-Jazeera up close -- to really watch it, rather than catch eight-second snippets of snidely filtered stereotype by "our" own networks -- is to see the rest of the world as it sees us, and from the street up. It's not a window on the world. That's the Travel Channel. It's the languages of the world, in English. Not surprisingly, America is turning a deaf ear. The only way to see the channel is to spring for a $6-a-month Internet subscription. Good enough, but still. Cable and satellite providers won't touch al-Jazeera. Censorship? Worse: Ignorance.
Al-Jazeera in the no-fluff zone of eye-opening network news
By PIERRE TRISTAM
ESSAYS
It's Sunday morning. I've been at the computer, watching al-Jazeera's new English-language all-news channel. (It's not available on television in the United States, as it is in the rest of the world; we'll get to that in a moment.) I'm not bored or driven insane as I am by most TV news. Network news here is self-absorbed and simplistic. If it's not happening in the United States or doesn't relate to the collective colonic, it doesn't rate attention. There are exceptions. But they're islets of glitter in oceans of sludge.
Consciously directed at a Western audience, al-Jazeera's focus is on what the American eye ignores, or prefers not to see, especially in that Arab-Islamic world that keeps reshaping our own even as we profess not to understand why. It's flawlessly produced, unassuming and the most blessed no-fluff zone on the air.
So far this morning I've watched a show called "Everywoman," a newsmagazine program that featured a segment about the slow evolution of rape laws in backwoods Indonesia (where, as in other places where Islamic law is more predatory than protective, women take the blame for being raped and face more ostracism or punishment than legal recourse); and another about Nada Zeidan, the Gulf's first woman race-car driver, who sounds and looks more interesting than any 10 NASCAR men put together.
One of the news-hours I watched included reports from Darfur and Gaza, and a long piece on how Hezbollah is deliberately shoving Lebanon back toward civil war. The segment included a live, tough interview from Beirut of Hassan Fadlallah, spokesman and news director for Hezbollah's al-Manar television (banned in the United States, France and Spain). To American viewers, merely giving groups like Hezbollah room to speak is an indication of sympathy. To al-Jazeera, ignoring them is an indication of stupidity, especially since Hezbollah's ilk are driving the Mideastern agenda more than neocons ever managed. Might as well understand their motives. That's not sympathy. It's common sense.
The same goes for the next segment. Here's how the anchor set it up (after his mention of 52 killed in Iraq "so far on Sunday"): "Let's take a closer look now at one of the groups fighting in Iraq. It's called the Islamic Army. It's been responsible for kidnappings and attacks on American troops. It's a Sunni organization and the stated aim of it is to drive out all foreign influence from Iraq, be it from Iran or from the United States. Well, al-Jazeera has obtained pictures of the group in training. Iraq correspondent Hoda Abdel-Hamid has our exclusive report." Cut to Abdel-Hamid's voice-over as footage shows hooded men training in a rural setting: "Some call them insurgents or terrorists. They describe themselves as a national resistance movement. Born out of occupation, the soldiers of the Islamic Army pride themselves on being Iraqi. None of their fighters, they say, are foreigners. Their aim: To expel any foreign fighter from Iraq."
Further footage shows the new recruits training in ambushes, kidnappings, "tactical instructions to hit enemy helicopters," rescue operations, then a graduation ceremony "as a new class of fighters is ready to pick up arms." The segment is one-sided. It quotes only one "spokesman of Islamic Army in Iraq" (his face is oddly blanked out, even though he's identified as Ibrahim al-Shamary). But when is the last time an American network interviewed an insurgent to balance out what, let's admit it, has been three years of inaccurate tripe from military and academic spokesmen this side of reality?
My favorite story of the day, an affecting, 60 Minutes-like piece the late Ed Bradley might have done, was called "Being Osama" -- the story of five Canadian citizens of Arab descent unfortunately named Osama, and how their names have been Borat-like triggers of latent racism and hatred among Westerners. "It's a very common name in the Middle East. And here, too," one of them, a composer, says as the image cuts to Osama bin Laden shooting his Kalashnikov, then back to the composer: "But it's evil." Al-Jazeera, alleged bin Laden sympathizer, shows you how.
To watch al-Jazeera up close -- to really watch it, rather than catch eight-second snippets of snidely filtered stereotype by "our" own networks -- is to see the rest of the world as it sees us, and from the street up. It's not a window on the world. That's the Travel Channel. It's the languages of the world, in English. Not surprisingly, America is turning a deaf ear. The only way to see the channel is to spring for a $6-a-month Internet subscription. Good enough, but still. Cable and satellite providers won't touch al-Jazeera. Censorship? Worse: Ignorance.
(all) http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJour...ESSAY112106.htm
I remember years ago how American "freedom" touted the fact that our broadcasts were banned in Soviet states...
HEY are you right wing psychos proud of the "protection" you get from our system now?
Is this the price of losing in VietNam, or the price of losing our homeland to fascism?
HEY are you right wing psychos proud of the "protection" you get from our system now?
Is this the price of losing in VietNam, or the price of losing our homeland to fascism?
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Nov 23 2006, 02:45 AM) [snapback]262908[/snapback]
Sounds like the little guy has a new toy, the novelty of which may wear off pretty soon. Then again, for him maybe not.
The New York Times today asked the U.S. Supreme Court
to approve its
The Times asked the Supreme Court on Friday to block the government from reviewing the phone records of two reporters in a leak investigation about a terrorism-funding probe. The case involved stories written in 2001
You are an intelligent man. Dolt
Rumsfeld authorized torture, says former Abu Ghraib commander
Deutsche Presse-Agentur, by Staff
11/25/2006 3:15:36 PM
Madrid - The former commander of Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq claimed outgoing US defence minister Donald Rumsfeld had personally authorized the use of torture against prisoners, an interview published in Spanish daily El Pais revealed Saturday. 'I saw a memorandum signed by Rumsfeld on the use of such interrogation methods,' Janis Karpinski told El Pais. The techniques allegedly approved by Rumsfeld in the document included disruption of prisoners' sleep and mealtimes, forcing them to listen to loud music or to stand for long periods............
The liberalized, feminized, metrosexulaized and gayized groups won't stop trying to destroy our great military.
Deutsche Presse-Agentur, by Staff
11/25/2006 3:15:36 PM
Madrid - The former commander of Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq claimed outgoing US defence minister Donald Rumsfeld had personally authorized the use of torture against prisoners, an interview published in Spanish daily El Pais revealed Saturday. 'I saw a memorandum signed by Rumsfeld on the use of such interrogation methods,' Janis Karpinski told El Pais. The techniques allegedly approved by Rumsfeld in the document included disruption of prisoners' sleep and mealtimes, forcing them to listen to loud music or to stand for long periods............
The liberalized, feminized, metrosexulaized and gayized groups won't stop trying to destroy our great military.
rummy shows them how to do it
QUOTE(Lord_Proprietor @ Nov 25 2006, 04:22 PM) [snapback]263343[/snapback]
Rumsfeld authorized torture, says former Abu Ghraib commander
Deutsche Presse-Agentur, by Staff
11/25/2006 3:15:36 PM
Madrid - The former commander of Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq claimed outgoing US defence minister Donald Rumsfeld had personally authorized the use of torture against prisoners, an interview published in Spanish daily El Pais revealed Saturday. 'I saw a memorandum signed by Rumsfeld on the use of such interrogation methods,' Janis Karpinski told El Pais. The techniques allegedly approved by Rumsfeld in the document included disruption of prisoners' sleep and mealtimes, forcing them to listen to loud music or to stand for long periods............
Of course he authorized it. Bush did too. He has all along.
QUOTE
The liberalized, feminized, metrosexulaized and gayized groups won't stop trying to destroy our great military.
You are buggie.
Gonzales defends it
Disrupting sleep and making them stand for long periods. Our OWN army gets that kind of treatment, not to mention internists in hospitals.
Where would Al Qaeda ba without so many bleeding heart Americans?
Where would Al Qaeda ba without so many bleeding heart Americans?
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Nov 25 2006, 09:09 PM) [snapback]263380[/snapback]
Disrupting sleep and making them stand for long periods. Our OWN army gets that kind of treatment, not to mention internists in hospitals.
Where would Al Qaeda ba without so many bleeding heart Americans?
Sounds kinda like a milder version of basic training. I remember standing in the rain all day after getting flu shots. That was fun. But nobody talked.
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Nov 25 2006, 09:23 PM) [snapback]263399[/snapback]
Sounds kinda like a milder version of basic training. I remember standing in the rain all day after getting flu shots. That was fun. But nobody talked.
Too bad you were on our side or you might get some sympathy.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Nov 25 2006, 10:37 PM) [snapback]263401[/snapback]
Too bad you were on our side or you might get some sympathy.
No sympathy from lefties.
Douchebag. Part time morals.
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Nov 25 2006, 08:23 PM) [snapback]263399[/snapback]
Sounds kinda like a milder version of basic training. I remember standing in the rain all day after getting flu shots. That was fun. But nobody talked.
I remember talking about panties....but only a few guys wore'em.
We wondered why they did it but we didn't ask and they didn't tell.
QUOTE(Repub_Bub @ Nov 26 2006, 09:06 AM) [snapback]263491[/snapback]
I remember talking about panties....but only a few guys wore'em.
We wondered why they did it but we didn't ask and they didn't tell.
If you find out, don't share.
QUOTE(Brian_Lambchops @ Nov 26 2006, 08:10 AM) [snapback]263493[/snapback]
If you find out, don't share.
Goes without saying...that would be torture.
QUOTE(Repub_Bub @ Nov 26 2006, 10:06 AM) [snapback]263491[/snapback]
I remember talking about panties....but only a few guys wore'em.
We wondered why they did it but we didn't ask and they didn't tell.
Airman Boucher was the kind of guy who sweated all the time. He could put on fresh fatigues and look like a sloppy pig within five minutes. One day we had inspection (Boucher stood directly across the aisle from me), and of course the sarge stopped when he got to Boucher and boy did he light into him about looking like a sweat hog. Next thing you know the sarge told Boucher to drop his pants. The poor guy had previously splled his marking kit ink on his white undies and there was black ink stains all over. I thought the sarge was going to take the roof off. I was trying not to laugh and feeling sorry for the guy at the same time. They took Boucher away and we never saw him again.
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Nov 26 2006, 03:02 PM) [snapback]263567[/snapback]
Airman Boucher was the kind of guy who sweated all the time. He could put on fresh fatigues and look like a sloppy pig within five minutes. One day we had inspection (Boucher stood directly across the aisle from me), and of course the sarge stopped when he got to Boucher and boy did he light into him about looking like a sweat hog. Next thing you know the sarge told Boucher to drop his pants. The poor guy had previously splled his marking kit ink on his white undies and there was black ink stains all over. I thought the sarge was going to take the roof off. I was trying not to laugh and feeling sorry for the guy at the same time. They took Boucher away and we never saw him again.
At least it wasn't a yellow stain.
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Nov 16 2006, 10:29 PM) [snapback]261315[/snapback]
Huh?
Psst. Buzzard. ^^^^
Somebody call?
Whoops, wrong costume. ( I ain't no schzizzlin'vulture)
Court turns down New York Times in leak investigation
AP, by Staff
11/27/2006 3:56:58 PM
The Supreme Court ruled against The New York Times on Monday, refusing to block the government from reviewing the phone records of two Times reporters in a leak investigation of a terrorism-funding probe. /snip/ The stories revealed the government's plans to freeze the assets of two Islamic charities, the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation.
AP, by Staff
11/27/2006 3:56:58 PM
The Supreme Court ruled against The New York Times on Monday, refusing to block the government from reviewing the phone records of two Times reporters in a leak investigation of a terrorism-funding probe. /snip/ The stories revealed the government's plans to freeze the assets of two Islamic charities, the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation.
QUOTE
Comments:
From the article:
Whose side are these reporters on, anyway??
From the article:
QUOTE
The current dispute stems from Shenon and Miller calling two charities for comment after learning of the planned freeze on their assets from confidential sources.
The Justice Department says the reporters' calls tipped off the charities of upcoming government raids.
The Justice Department says the reporters' calls tipped off the charities of upcoming government raids.
Whose side are these reporters on, anyway??
QUOTE
Whose side are these reporters on, anyway??
You have to ask?
you're with us or you're with the terrorists
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Nov 27 2006, 02:19 PM) [snapback]263856[/snapback]
You have to ask?
Apparently, yes.
Drudge -
TOO MUCH HOLIDAY CHEER: Slurring Star Devito
bashes Bush in bleep-ridden segment of
'The View' on Wednesday. 'I knew it was
the last seven limoncellos that was going
to get me,' the 'Deck the Halls' star tells
the gals. As co-host Rosie O'Donnell
theatrically holds back the spewing actor,
Barbara Walters looks on in observable
disgust. In next segment in apparent slap
at Devito, O'Donnell embraces new guest,
Thomas Gibson, and whipsers in his ear,
'Nice to see you sober.' Developing...
TOO MUCH HOLIDAY CHEER: Slurring Star Devito
bashes Bush in bleep-ridden segment of
'The View' on Wednesday. 'I knew it was
the last seven limoncellos that was going
to get me,' the 'Deck the Halls' star tells
the gals. As co-host Rosie O'Donnell
theatrically holds back the spewing actor,
Barbara Walters looks on in observable
disgust. In next segment in apparent slap
at Devito, O'Donnell embraces new guest,
Thomas Gibson, and whipsers in his ear,
'Nice to see you sober.' Developing...
drudgereport.com
yeah you tell 'em Danny!
yeah you tell 'em Danny!
Bush and Maliki
Meeting today as Crypto Cronkites work to weaken U.S. position
Wall Street Journal, by Editorial Staff
11/29/2006 5:46:13 AM
President Bush is in Jordan today for meetings with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and the most important message the two leaders could send would be to reaffirm their common commitment to their antiterror fight.--snip--There's also this week's spectacle of the wannabe Walter Cronkites...patting themselves on the back for declaring that the Iraq conflict is a "civil war."
Comments:
The 'Fourth Estate" turned "Fifth Column" and actually has become a traitor to the nation, as one veteran caller said on WJ this AM!
drudgereport.com
yeah you tell 'em Danny!
Yea, just as long as he was bashing GWB, it's OK!
Meeting today as Crypto Cronkites work to weaken U.S. position
Wall Street Journal, by Editorial Staff
11/29/2006 5:46:13 AM
President Bush is in Jordan today for meetings with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and the most important message the two leaders could send would be to reaffirm their common commitment to their antiterror fight.--snip--There's also this week's spectacle of the wannabe Walter Cronkites...patting themselves on the back for declaring that the Iraq conflict is a "civil war."
Comments:
QUOTE
Setting the record straight...
Well written and I'd like to see the anchors asked why those words were read off the teleprompter....who actually wrote them, and why it was done at this particular point in time...?
Well written and I'd like to see the anchors asked why those words were read off the teleprompter....who actually wrote them, and why it was done at this particular point in time...?
QUOTE
Tony Snow:
''First order of business today: the White House has evidence that the major networks, The New York Times, and the Washington Post have all held the truth hostage, and sometimes tortured it, in order to achieve their goal of bringing down this admistration.
We call on their parent organizations to shut down the newsrooms where these atrocities occur and help us bring the editors and network officials responsible to justice.''
Just dreaming.
''First order of business today: the White House has evidence that the major networks, The New York Times, and the Washington Post have all held the truth hostage, and sometimes tortured it, in order to achieve their goal of bringing down this admistration.
We call on their parent organizations to shut down the newsrooms where these atrocities occur and help us bring the editors and network officials responsible to justice.''
Just dreaming.
The 'Fourth Estate" turned "Fifth Column" and actually has become a traitor to the nation, as one veteran caller said on WJ this AM!
QUOTE(inyerface @ Nov 29 2006, 01:52 PM) [snapback]264369[/snapback]
drudgereport.com
yeah you tell 'em Danny!
Yea, just as long as he was bashing GWB, it's OK!
Yea, just as long as he was bashing GWB, it's OK!
QUOTE
Crypto Cronkites
HANK'S NEW LADY GREENBERG PUTS SQUEEZE ON PINCH'S PAPER
By RODDY BOYD
VANITY PRESS:
Ex-AIG big Hank Greenberg (above)
is ramping up his bid to rattle
New York Times boss
Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger.
November 29, 2006
Sources confirmed that the famously combative Greenberg has been buying hundreds of thousands of Times shares, but did not disclose the exact number or the size of the stake he wants to own.
Greenberg has both the assets - Forbes estimated his net worth at $3.2 billion - and the temperament to jump into a fight over the future of the stumbling newspaper giant.
A major stock position would put Greenberg in league with already angry Times' shareholders, such as Morgan Stanley Investment Management, to battle the board over whether the founding Ochs-Sulzberger family should hold a powerful class of stock that accounts for a majority of the voting power at the company.
A Times spokeswoman said the Ochs-Sulzberger family has given no indication that it wishes to change the so-called dual-class structure.
Sources said Greenberg views the Times, which has a market cap of $3.3 billion, as a top-flight brand but one with an "artificially depressed" stock price.
Times shares have plunged almost 15 percent in the last year, a drop that has put enormous pressure on Chairman Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr., the family scion who has been at the helm of the company since 1997.
On Nov. 13, the New York Times reported that Greenberg was considering a bid for the Tribune Company or Dow Jones, and consulting with bankers and lawyers about a possible offer.
Shareholder watchdogs have slammed Times management as overpaid - criticism that forced Sulzberger and his cousin, Vice Chairman Michael Golden, to say in September they would forgo about $2 million in stock awards and pump it into a bonus pool for the company's employees.
Greenberg, a legendary figure in the New York financial community, ran AIG for nearly 40 years before being deposed in a bitter boardroom coup after New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer alleged the company engaged in accounting improprieties.
Spitzer eventually filed charges against Greenberg and ex-AIG CFO Howard Smith. Fighting back bitterly in the courts and the media, Greenberg eventually got Spitzer to drop all criminal charges against him.
Spitzer is still pursuing civil charges against Greenberg, although he has dropped two of his six original allegations.
A Greenberg spokesman declined to discuss the specifics of his investment in the Times, but told The Post, "Mr. Greenberg is interested in exploring several options with respect to media companies."
By RODDY BOYD
VANITY PRESS:
Ex-AIG big Hank Greenberg (above)
is ramping up his bid to rattle
New York Times boss
Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger.
November 29, 2006
-- Billionaire insurance titan Maurice "Hank" Greenberg has begun buying huge blocks of New York Times stock to break the Sulzberger family's stranglehold on the media empire, The Post has learned.
Sources confirmed that the famously combative Greenberg has been buying hundreds of thousands of Times shares, but did not disclose the exact number or the size of the stake he wants to own.
Greenberg has both the assets - Forbes estimated his net worth at $3.2 billion - and the temperament to jump into a fight over the future of the stumbling newspaper giant.
A major stock position would put Greenberg in league with already angry Times' shareholders, such as Morgan Stanley Investment Management, to battle the board over whether the founding Ochs-Sulzberger family should hold a powerful class of stock that accounts for a majority of the voting power at the company.
A Times spokeswoman said the Ochs-Sulzberger family has given no indication that it wishes to change the so-called dual-class structure.
Sources said Greenberg views the Times, which has a market cap of $3.3 billion, as a top-flight brand but one with an "artificially depressed" stock price.
Times shares have plunged almost 15 percent in the last year, a drop that has put enormous pressure on Chairman Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr., the family scion who has been at the helm of the company since 1997.
The stock is well off its 52-week high of $28.98 that it hit in February. In November 2004, Times shares traded above $40 before they began their free-fall.
On Nov. 13, the New York Times reported that Greenberg was considering a bid for the Tribune Company or Dow Jones, and consulting with bankers and lawyers about a possible offer.
Shareholder watchdogs have slammed Times management as overpaid - criticism that forced Sulzberger and his cousin, Vice Chairman Michael Golden, to say in September they would forgo about $2 million in stock awards and pump it into a bonus pool for the company's employees.
Greenberg, a legendary figure in the New York financial community, ran AIG for nearly 40 years before being deposed in a bitter boardroom coup after New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer alleged the company engaged in accounting improprieties.
Spitzer eventually filed charges against Greenberg and ex-AIG CFO Howard Smith. Fighting back bitterly in the courts and the media, Greenberg eventually got Spitzer to drop all criminal charges against him.
Spitzer is still pursuing civil charges against Greenberg, although he has dropped two of his six original allegations.
A Greenberg spokesman declined to discuss the specifics of his investment in the Times, but told The Post, "Mr. Greenberg is interested in exploring several options with respect to media companies."
QUOTE
Who Is Maurice Greenberg, Man Behind Bid for 'NY Times'?
By E&P Staff
Published: November 29, 2006 3:30 PM ET updatted 5:00 PM ET
NEW YORK Because of the "dual stock" status of The New York Times Co., the chances that Maurice "Hank" Greenberg -- the former AIG chairman and CEO now reported to be intent on taking over the company -- will actually succeed in his quest may be slim. Still, he is a man to be reckoned with, and who knows what ripple effects may appear.
If Greenberg ever did get in the position to run the company, the political orientation of the paper might well change. Greenberg has strong Republican connections -- friend of Henry Kissinger, once mentioned as a Reagan appointee to help run the CIA, and a funder of GOP candidates........
By E&P Staff
Published: November 29, 2006 3:30 PM ET updatted 5:00 PM ET
NEW YORK Because of the "dual stock" status of The New York Times Co., the chances that Maurice "Hank" Greenberg -- the former AIG chairman and CEO now reported to be intent on taking over the company -- will actually succeed in his quest may be slim. Still, he is a man to be reckoned with, and who knows what ripple effects may appear.
If Greenberg ever did get in the position to run the company, the political orientation of the paper might well change. Greenberg has strong Republican connections -- friend of Henry Kissinger, once mentioned as a Reagan appointee to help run the CIA, and a funder of GOP candidates........
I would be willing to bet fewer than a handful of people ever read even one of the cut and pastes LP does all day every day.
I read 'em. But like everything else some I skim and some I scan.
skim, scan, can...
save time, LP, just put them here
save time, LP, just put them here
Where you put it is your business. Don't ask, don't tell.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.