21–30 of 151 posts
Now we have two (more) major newsoutlets owned by activist owners --WaPo and Time Mag. Wish there were more independence in the media. Or at least fewer owners who will push agendas. Time will tell.
Now we have two (more) major newsoutlets owned by activist owners --WaPo and Time Mag. Wish there were more independence in the media. Or at least fewer owners who will push agendas. Time will tell.
Only two? Murdoch, Turner ... I'm sure there are many more.
HuffPo but she's been at it for a while.
I meant to say major ownership changes to activist owners in the last two years --though there may be some other big ones.
Now we have two (more) major newsoutlets owned by activist owners --WaPo and Time Mag. Wish there were more independence in the media. Or at least fewer owners who will push agendas. Time will tell.
We can hire all the brightest MBAs in the world, and if they don't have the right values, we will fail. We hire based on values first - then talent.
https://youtu.be/Z7Pj2rKdKII?t=25m12s
Other quotes:
What are my capabilities that will create superior values for others? What are the best opportunities to do that?
Now we have two (more) major newsoutlets owned by activist owners --WaPo and Time Mag. Wish there were more independence in the media. Or at least fewer owners who will push agendas. Time will tell.
I think that's what "independence" in the media looks like. The alternative is ownership by massive conglomerates. GE owns NBC, does that make NBC more "independent" than the New York Times (which is owned by the Sulzberger family)? Media outlets are valuable, thus your options for ownership are 1) very rich individuals or families or 2) large corporations. Which one of those did you want to see more of?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has WaPo's "activist" owner had any real impact on what they choose to cover?
We don't truly know because we don't/can't/won't know all the stories that WaPo killed because of influence. However, worrying about stories being "killed" is the wrong way to think of the potentially nefarious effects. The much more common problem, and much harder to detect, are knowing the stories that the WaPo (or any news org) just didn't put priority into pursuing because of institutional inertia and unspoken ru…
I don't agree with the general point that bias is necessarily difficult to detect. For example, with Murdoch there is a large amount of explicit evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has WaPo's "activist" owner had any real impact on what they choose to cover?
We don't truly know because we don't/can't/won't know all the stories that WaPo killed because of influence. However, worrying about stories being "killed" is the wrong way to think of the potentially nefarious effects. The much more common problem, and much harder to detect, are knowing the stories that the WaPo (or any news org) just didn't put priority into pursuing because of institutional inertia and unspoken ru…
Lets say WashPo kills a story, why wouldn't Fox News run that story in the headlines? Or New York times? Or Politico, or... any media organization worth a darn?
Now we have two (more) major newsoutlets owned by activist owners --WaPo and Time Mag. Wish there were more independence in the media. Or at least fewer owners who will push agendas. Time will tell.
I think that's what "independence" in the media looks like. The alternative is ownership by massive conglomerates. GE owns NBC, does that make NBC more "independent" than the New York Times (which is owned by the Sulzberger family)? Media outlets are valuable, thus your options for ownership are 1) very rich individuals or families or 2) large corporations. Which one of those did you want to see more of?
Now we have two (more) major newsoutlets owned by activist owners --WaPo and Time Mag. Wish there were more independence in the media. Or at least fewer owners who will push agendas. Time will tell.
I like the British media, because they don't pretend to be impartial. Impartiality is impossible, so it's better to be honest about that fact than to pretend to be impartial as the American media does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's what "independence" in the media looks like. The alternative is ownership by massive conglomerates. GE owns NBC, does that make NBC more "independent" than the New York Times (which is owned by the Sulzberger family)? Media outlets are valuable, thus your options for ownership are 1) very rich individuals or families or 2) large corporations. Which one of those did you want to see more of?
Since 2013, Comcast, not GE, owns NBC.