[Sivad]

Oh, and I forgot the Kochs, they own Time Inc.

[Sivad]

Rupert Murdoch, Jonathon Harmsworth, Richard Desmond and the Barclay’s Twins own 80% of the newspapers in the UK. They're all billionaires.

[Red_Army]

McClatchy owns my local paper. Also a massive media corporation.

[Sivad]

So what is it with billionaires wanting to own newspapers even though they have a "terrible future," as Buffett had put it so elegantly in 2009 before he started buying newspapers himself?

Wealthy people buying and running newspapers is a well-established practice. And fortunes have been made founding the old print media, including by such newspaper moguls as William Randolph Hearst. It's just that there are a lot more billionaires these days, with asset prices inflated as they have been since the global money-printing orgy started in 2008. The print media may be in a death spiral, but some of their online versions have a large and growing readership, though they might still lose money. And a little red ink may well be worth the price to influence the debate.
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-bil ... ral-2018-2

[Sivad]

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
― Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda

[maz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDlI-t25D7c

This is actually a very good video. Thanks for posting.

I can say that there is nothing I disagree with in that video. I especially agree with Dore's pointing out that the intelligence and subsequent media reports about Iraq's imaginary WMDs was low quality, false, and offensive.

It should also be pointed out that Dore finds Jones so detestable, that he literally spat on him!



I think spitting on someone is actually battery, so I would hope that Dore eventually apologized to Jones.

Here is another video about the unintended consequences of censorship.

I maintain that "the deep state" really intends to censor the more credible alternative media voices, like Jay Dyer.

Dyer just had his WordPress blog deleted this week, without warning (violation of TOS), despite being a paid WordPress patron, and despite WordPress' alleged commitment to free speech.

Dyer, despite appearing on the explicit pro-white Red Ice Creations, he himself is not at all "racist" and is virulently anti-white supremacist.

He has continually maintained that white supremacist groups are fed controlled, just like Christian Identity, radical jihadis, pro-blacks, La Raza and every other extremist group you can think of.

I wouldn't go so far as to call Dyer a scholar but he is certainly more intellectual than the standard Infowar's fare.

He suggests that his blog may have been targeted for warning of the technocracy for almost 10 years now, and for editorializing the published words of groups like the Atlantic Council.

[SpecialOlympian]

Dyer just had his WordPress blog deleted this week, without warning (violation of TOS), despite being a paid WordPress patron, and despite WordPress' alleged commitment to free speech.

All he did was violate their terms of service. Here is why he he is being oppressed: *long, loud, wet fart*

Why are nazis like you such pathetic, weak sisters who feel as if people owe them a platform? Build one yourself, stop bitching at people to give you their microphone. I see a man, a pathetic man, saying, "Here is exactly why he was banned for the rules he broke. But actually, it's oppression."

Grow up.

Far right wing ideology is based on power. But they have none. And when even a tiny social media platform asserts power over them, for breaking the rules they agreed to abide by, they cry and bitch and moan and beg people to treat them like special needs children who have to be handled with kid gloves. Pathetic.

[SpecialOlympian]

Right wing ideology is the loser nerd from the old 50's comic ad about getting sand kicked in his face by a bully and then getting swole because he bought something. Because that is how far right wing losers establish their identity: by purchasing things and identifying with brands. Lmao, get fuckt liberals, I'm giving free money to a red, fat, shouting conman to own you.

It is our duty as non-retarded people existing in a society to not just kick sand in their faces, but to keep kicking them every time they try to get up. They are cowards and bullies at heart, and their only identity is the video games and the media they buy. If we allow them to achieve any importance whatsoever it will be a boot stomping on a face forever as a fat, chubby nerd huffs and shouts, "I'm pickle Rick, bitch!"

[colliric]

Geeze, T-R-I-G-G-E-R-E-D much SO?

Did it really need 5 paragraphs over two posts?

Aren't I the one known for immediate double posting?

We give cash to right-wing media personalities to keep doing what they're doing... So what?

[SpecialOlympian]

*Opens up the SPLC donations page*

Who's triggered now?

We give cash to right-wing media personalities to keep doing what they're doing... So what?

You are actually fairly likable as a right winger because you are earnest and joyful about throwing money at con men. Keep owning it, man.

[Rugoz]

Many of them are. You want me to list them?

Carlos Slim - New York Times

Rupert Murdoch - News Corp(The Wallstreet Journal)

John Henry - The Boston Globe

Jeff Bezos - The Washington Post

Patrick Soon-Shiong - Tribune Publishing Co.(Los Angeles Times and The Chicago Tribune)

Cox Family - Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Donald and Samuel "Si" Newhouse - Advance Publications

Warren Buffet - 31 daily newspapers, 47 weekly newspapers, 32 "other print products," and a TV station in Miami

Sheldon Adelson - The Las Vegas Review-Journal

Mortimer Zuckerman - US News & World Report, New York Daily News

Barbey family - Village Voice

And that's just the billionaires, if I included the $100 millionaires it would be every major newspaper in the country.

I looked up the first one. Slim currently owns <8% of class B shares, and all class B shareholders appoint 1/3 of board members. Meaning Slim effectively owns 2-3% of the NYTimes in terms of voting rights.

I haven't look up the rest of your claims, but I suppose they're equally dubious.

Not hard to do when there's an oligopoly.

Is it? The national TV market probably, but newspapers? We would need some actual data on this.

Oh, so there are no barriers to entry in the national newspaper business?

With the internet there's basically no barrier except attention. As for newspapers: If there's a sufficiently large market niche one can expect investors to close it.

But obviously you'll just deny the profit motive when it comes to media investment/ownership.

You're talking out your ass. Media concentration is a huge problem in the US. There's also the problem of interlocking directorates where members of the board of a media conglomerate sit on the boards of numerous other multinational corporations. Money also owns the politicians who (de)regulate media.

How is that even a response to what I wrote?

I would like to see data and media concentration in the US. But when exactly is media ownership too concentrated? Pick your indicator and a cut-off value.

What is the alternative to private media ownership anyway? I live in a country where TV is almost entirely state-run (with 72% of the population backing it in a recent referendum). I don't think it's fundamentally different from private newspapers or in fact privately-owned newspapers in the US (obviously US news are generally somewhat more right-wing). I don't watch US TV so I cannot speak for that.

[Sivad]

I looked up the first one. Slim currently owns <8% of class B shares, and all class B shareholders appoint 1/3 of board members. Meaning Slim effectively owns 2-3% of the NYTimes in terms of voting rights.

I haven't look up the rest of your claims, but I suppose they're equally dubious.

As of April 2018, Slim owns "24 million shares in the publisher, a stake of about 14.6%, according to a regulatory filing." That's down from 17.4% before April 2018. He's the largest single shareholder. The family that owns controlling interest is worth a half billion, so even if you did have your facts straight I'd still be essentially right. 14% gives him considerable access and influence and that's likely all he was after anyway.

Is it? The national TV market probably, but newspapers? We would need some actual data on this.

I just showed you that it is, go look at how many local and regional papers are owned by Buffet or McClatchy.

With the internet there's basically no barrier except attention.

The internet is changing things but it is near impossible for independent digital media to compete with Money. Money doesn't just own the television, radio, and print, it owns the politicians, the academics, and the regulators as well. That gives it narrative dominance which is extremely difficult to effectively challenge. It's why there are so many people like you in the world, your pompous ignorance is the product that Money pays the media to make.

As for newspapers: If there's a sufficiently large market niche one can expect investors to close it.

There's a large market niche for a populist muckraking national paper so why haven't investors closed it?

But obviously you'll just deny the profit motive when it comes to media investment/ownership.

I don't deny the profit motive, the profit motive perfectly explains why Money would want to control mass media.

What is the alternative to private media ownership anyway?

I don't care if Money has mass propaganda outlets as long as there's a democratic national media right along side it to counter the bullshit.

I live in a country where TV is almost entirely state-run (with 72% of the population backing it in a recent referendum). I don't think it's fundamentally different from private newspapers or in fact privately-owned newspapers in the US (obviously US news are generally somewhat more right-wing). I don't watch US TV so I cannot speak for that.

You're right, it's the same shit, that's because the same rich assholes that own the media also own the government. Democratic media is a whole other animal, there is no top down control, which is why we don't have much of it.

[Sivad]

New York Times Silent On Major Carlos Slim Lawsuit

The New York Times’ lack of coverage on a major lawsuit involving its billionaire shareholder Carlos Slim has at least one writer wondering if Slim has bought the paper’s silence.

The Big Money’s James Ledbetter wrote over the weekend about “The Story The New York Times Won’t Touch.” Slim, who bought a large stake in the New York Times in 2008 and then raised his stake in early 2009, is a Mexican telecom billionaire.

Slim is involved in a lawsuit that includes both JP Morgan and his main telecom rival, as summarized by Reuters’ Felix Salmon:

JP Morgan took one of its longest-standing clients in Mexico — Grupo Televisa — and tried to hand all of its secrets over to its biggest rival, Carlos Slim. And the way it tried to do that was by selling Slim a loan larded up with covenants which would essentially force Televisa to reveal any and all information to the holder of the debt.

Ledbetter argues that the size of the trial’s parties, as well as the scandalous details, would merit an article in the New York Times business section (he notes that it was covered by both the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg). And yet, the paper has not covered the lawsuit at all, leading Ledbetter to wonder if Slim’s stake in the newspaper is the reason:

This is a scandalous story, involving one of the world’s largest banks, a powerful federal judge, and two Mexican telecom giants. Under any other circumstances, the business section of the Times would be expected to cover it, as the Journal and Bloomberg have. Yet as of Saturday midday, I cannot find a single mention of any aspect of this case, anywhere in the physical New York Times, or on its Web site—not even a blog post or a wire story. Perhaps as the lawsuit moves on, the Times will be compelled to cover it. But for the moment, it certainly appears that Carlos Slim’s investment has bought the silence of one of the world’s most important newspapers.

A search on NYTimes.com Monday confirmed that the case has not been mentioned on the paper’s website.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/ ... 71230.html

Slim didn't just acquire the largest stake in the paper, he bailed it out in 2008 saving it from collapse with a $250 million dollar loan, it's hard to imagine that he'd do that without securing some major editorial influence for himself. But maybe not, maybe he's not a shrewd and ruthless fucker, maybe his honesty and integrity made him one of the richest men ever to walk the Earth.

[Rugoz]

As of April 2018, Slim owns "24 million shares in the publisher, a stake of about 14.6%, according to a regulatory filing." That's down from 17.4% before April 2018. He's the largest single shareholder. The family that owns controlling interest is worth a half billion, so even if you did have your facts straight I'd still be essentially right. 14% gives him considerable access and influence and that's likely all he was after anyway.

Here's my source:

Carlos Slim, the Mexican telecommunications mogul, has sold half of his shares of common stock and warrants in the New York Times Co., valued at just under $240 million.

With the stock up 50 percent of the past year, Slim appears to be reaping a huge profit.

The 77-year-old investor was the single largest shareholder of common stock at NYT before the selloff.

Divesting the warrants for future shares means he is cutting down what would have been a 16.9 percent stake — had he had he kept the warrants for himself — to somewhere between 6.9 percent and 8.5 percent of the shares after the selloff.

The Ochs-Sulzberger family still controls the board through its control of Class B shares.

With the selloff, it appears entitities controlled by Slim and his companies could be the second-largest NYT shareholder, behind BlackRock’s 8.1 percent stake.

https://nypost.com/2017/12/19/carlos-sl ... -for-240m/

I suggest you post your own. I confused class B and A shares in my previous post, but fact remains, all class A shareholders only control 1/3 of the board.

I just showed you that it is...

You didn't show anything, even if we assume your anecdotes are correct.

Here's a chapter on market structure in the daily newspaper industry in the US (page 109).
I quote (page 112): "In concentration terms, this situation is moderate."

It's why there are so many people like you in the world, your pompous ignorance is the product that Money pays the media to make.

I don't deny the profit motive, the profit motive perfectly explains why Money would want to control mass media.

No it doesn't. If you do not exploit a market because of political considerations, it means you're foregoing profits. As in any other market, firms could extract more profits in total by cooperating, but the incentive for the individual firm to deviate is too big. Market concentration has to be very high for a cooperation equilibrium to be stable. That's the point of anti-trust law by the way, to destroy cooperation.

I don't care if Money has mass propaganda outlets as long as there's a democratic national media right along side it to counter the bullshit.

If referendum-approved state media aren't democratic, what the are democratic media supposed to be? A collection of Youtube channels? Actual journalism requires resources and organization. Needless to say the opposition to state media came from libertarians and the far-right, not from the left, not even the far-left.

You're right, it's the same shit, that's because the same rich assholes that own the media also own the government.

Politics and media would look completely different if they only served the interests of the rich, where I live and to a lesser extent also in the US. You have a ridiculous black and white view on basically every topic.

[maz]

This is pretty crazy.

Alex Jones got his entire YouTube channel deleted, and now these scumbags are accusing him of destroying the evidence that he hurt Sandy Hook parent's feelings.

Alex Jones destroying evidence in Sandy Hook case, claim says

Mr Jones said on his broadcast last week that he had told his staff to delete material after CNN cited Infowars content that violated Twitter’s policies, according to the motion filed Friday.

Friday’s motion is the latest legal salvo in three separate defamation lawsuits filed by Sandy Hook families, which seek tens of millions of dollars in damages and pose an existential threat to Mr Jones’ business.

Should the court find that Mr Jones and Infowars willfully destroyed evidence, he, and possibly his lawyer, could be assessed fines and be subject to punitive action.

Most importantly, the material that was destroyed could be presumed by the court as supporting Mr Heslin’s claims against Mr Jones, bolstering his case.

Mr Jones has been protesting an unprecedented effort this month by Apple, Facebook, YouTube and other services to remove Infowars content from their platforms.

At least some of the deleted content was considered evidence in the Sandy Hook cases, and Mr Jones had been informed in writing in April that he was obligated by law to preserve all relevant material, according to the court filing in District Court in Travis County in Austin, Texas.

Alex Jones, the head of the evil conspiracy to hurt Sandy Hook parents feelings.

I was following a few Sandy Hook "investigators" here and there for a while a few years back. Some of them were definitely engaging in what could be considered harassment towards some of the Sandy Hook parents. A lot of that said harassment was documented on the blog Sandy Hook Stalkers.

The two most prominent stalkers on that blog are Jim Fetzer and Wolfgang Halbig, and then the blog does an extensive doxxing on other harassers.

I can't find Jones on that site though. But he has the money so he is getting sued.

[Sivad]

Here's my source:


https://nypost.com/2017/12/19/carlos-sl ... -for-240m/

I suggest you post your own.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/carlos ... 1524244371

It's pretty dishonest to pretend that Slim hasn't been the largest shareholder with 17% ownership for the last 5 years.

When the World’s Richest Billionaire Owns Your Paper

No it doesn't. If you do not exploit a market because of political considerations, it means you're foregoing profits.

Not if it will end up costing you more in the long term, which is why Money doesn't invest in populist muckraking.

If referendum-approved state media aren't democratic, what the are democratic media supposed to be?

Maybe you should look into that before spouting off about it.

Politics and media would look completely different if they only served the interests of the rich, where I live and to a lesser extent also in the US.

I don't know where you live but it's pretty clear you know next to nothing about US politics or media. Politics and media do overwhelmingly serve the interests of the rich, it's why there's a massive wealth gap, it's why neoliberalism holds sway, it's why politicians are all crooks and liars, it's why the newspapers don't do journalism but only act as stenographers for power.

You have a ridiculous black and white view on basically every topic.

There are always people like you in every society who deny or downplay the corruption and dysfunction of the staus quo. You're the people that are always in the way of a better world. Institutionalized abuse and exploitation has been the norm all throughout history, this point in history is no different. I don't have a black and white view on every issue, it's just impossible to honestly ignore how outrageously unfair and rigged the system is, anyone who claims otherwise is either an idiot or a shill.

[Sivad]

Behind the Scenes, Billionaires’ Growing Control of News
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/28/busi ... -news.html
an aggressive bid by the very wealthy to control the American news media at a time when it is in a financially weakened state, struggling to maintain its footing on the electronic frontier’s unstable terrain.

But billionaires do not become billionaires by being passive about their own interests. In other instances, once wealthy individuals are involved, those interests can appear to take over. Michael R. Bloomberg has built Bloomberg News into a formidable organization. But when its founder seriously contemplated a run for president, Bloomberg News editors steered their reporters away from covering it.

Of course, powerful media executives have long been part of the global fabric. Rupert Murdoch, the News Corporation executive chairman, has been at it for decades, and his influence over his news group has taken on mythical status.

And long before Mr. Murdoch, there was one William Randolph Hearst, who defined what it meant to be a media mogul.

But there is a difference between Hearst and the many billionaires who are trying to control today’s news media, said David Nasaw, the author of the great Hearst biography “The Chief: The Life of William Randolph Hearst.” “Hearst made it abundantly clear — ‘This is my newspaper, these are my views, take or leave it,’” he said. “Hearst put his editorials on the front page, with his picture, and he signed them, for God’s sake.”

Mr. Nasaw, on the other hand, sees Mr. Adelson as “dissembling” when he says he isn’t involving himself in editorial decisions at the paper. And then there are the Silicon Valley moguls, he said, who “try to have it both ways — they try to say, you know, ‘Oh no we’re playing by the rules and we’re not indulging in our personal whims.’”

Not one mention of Carlos Slim in the article.

[Sivad]

You didn't show anything, even if we assume your anecdotes are correct.

Here's a chapter on market structure in the daily newspaper industry in the US (page 109).
I quote (page 112): "In concentration terms, this situation is moderate."

The Largest Companies in 2016

Click on the company name below to see a list of the newspapers, by state and city, that the company owned in 2016

1.New Media/GateHouse
2.Gannett
3.Digital First Media
4.Community Newspaper Holdings Inc (CNHI)
5.Lee Enterprises
6.tronc/Tribune Publishing
7.Civitas Media
8.Shaw Media
9.Ogden Newspapers
10.BH Media Group
11.Advance Publications
12.McClatchy
13.Boone Newspapers
14.Landmark Media Enterprises
15.Paxton Media Group
16.Adams Publishing Group
17.Community Media Group
18.News Media Corporation
19.Black Press Group
20.10/13 Communications
21.Rust Communications
22.ECM Publishers
23.Forum Communications
24.Horizon Publications
25.Trib Publications
http://newspaperownership.com/additiona ... er-owners/

At the end of 2004, the three largest companies owned 487 newspapers with a combined circulation of 9.8 million. Today, the three largest companies own about 900 papers that have a combined circulation of 12.7 million.
http://newspaperownership.com/executive-summary/

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Why are The Young Turks not being banned from social media? Naming your channel and page after a genocidal political movement is surely inciting violence. Jenk Uygur was well known for denying the Armenian genocide in the past.

[Rugoz]

https://www.barrons.com/articles/carlos-slim-sells-40-million-more-in-new-york-times-stock-1524244371

It's pretty dishonest to pretend that Slim hasn't been the largest shareholder with 17% ownership for the last 5 years.

When the World’s Richest Billionaire Owns Your Paper

I cannot even find the 17% number in your sources, but regardless. You claimed Slim owns the NYTimes, which is simply horseshit given his current or past ownership of class A shares.

Not if it will end up costing you more in the long term, which is why Money doesn't invest in populist muckraking.

Investors will seek the short term profit, it's classical "tragedy of the commons". What is rational for the individual isn't necessarily rational for the group. Also, there is investment in "populist muckraking".

I don't know where you live but it's pretty clear you know next to nothing about US politics or media. Politics and media do overwhelmingly serve the interests of the rich, it's why there's a massive wealth gap, it's why neoliberalism holds sway, it's why politicians are all crooks and liars, it's why the newspapers don't do journalism but only act as stenographers for power.

As I see it America's love for "unfettered capitalism" is largely rooted in its culture. Freedom and all that "shit". No doubt though the influence of big business in the media and in politics are also important factors.

Maybe you should look into that before spouting off about it.

You brought it up, so define it.

There are always people like you in every society who deny or downplay the corruption and dysfunction of the staus quo. You're the people that are always in the way of a better world.

Cute.