Faux v. Franken: Are We Missing It?

[Robb]

Now, feel free to tell me I'm way off on this.

Franken's publisher is owned by Pearson, right? The same Pearson that Murdoch's News Corp owned until the 80s, the same Pearson that News Corp is partnering with in emerging Asian markets?

One hand washes the other -- was the whole thing actually to sell more books (instead of being a happy by-product)?

[Emboldened Chimp]

1. It's possible

I wouldn't put it past Murdoch. And really, it's not a bad business move. The only variable is O'Reilly: would he really put himself on the line to look like such an ass--more than he usually does?

[arcane1]

2. well, Enron gave money to the dems as well as the repubes

so your thought isn't TOO crazy

[FlashHarry]

3. Nah, the damage to FauxSnooze is too great.

That's Murdoch's and Ailes' baby. They wouldn't sacrifice it to sell a few books.

[Junkdrawer]

4. Yep. They're cutting their loses...

Fox drops lawsuit over Franken book

Monday, the cable news network withdrew the underlying lawsuit in a one-page court filing.

"It's time to return Al Franken to the obscurity he's normally accustomed to," a Fox spokeswoman later told CNN.

More...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/25/fox.v.franken/index.html

[eleny]

5. Interesting message for Bill, O, huh?

[Brian Sweat]

6. Kind of reminds me of an Episode of Ally McBeal

Where Nell represented Ling in a lawsuite against a "shock jock", because Ling felt he was responsible for her being sexually harrassed at work. The case had no legal merit. Nell just used it as a way to hold press conferences where she ridiculed the guy.

[Robb]

7. What damage?

Fox's viewers certainly don't care what a bunch of "activist judges" think, so they wouldn't lose any market share over it.

...And Franken's publisher is going to make a mint. I dunno, it's a move worthy of these guys.