91–100 of 151 posts
Allegedly, the Koch Brothers don't plan to take an active role in the company. "Steve Lombardo, a spokesman for Koch Industries, also said that the Kochs had no plans to take an active role in the expanded company. “This is a passive financial investment made through our equity development arm,” Mr. Lombardo said. The company’s role in the transaction, he said, was similar to that of a bank." Regardless of what you t…
Maybe Trump will be Time's person of the year after all.
Anyone know why the headline was changed on HN to remove the Koch Brothers?
Along with the shadow bans that get handed out on a whim, it's one of the major reasons I've stopped visiting.
Allegedly, the Koch Brothers don't plan to take an active role in the company. "Steve Lombardo, a spokesman for Koch Industries, also said that the Kochs had no plans to take an active role in the expanded company. “This is a passive financial investment made through our equity development arm,” Mr. Lombardo said. The company’s role in the transaction, he said, was similar to that of a bank." Regardless of what you t…
Occam's Razor. You typed a lot of words when the truth is obvious. Billionaires don't acquire media outlets to make money (directly).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ehh? If WashPo kills a story, the other news outlets would most likely be running those stories. 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?
Not all stories are widely known before they break. For instance, Wapo might not pursue an investigative piece on Amazon as enthusiastically, or another investigation may get prioritised because of the owner. A story that isn't pursued might not see the light of day. Big stories, like the Weinstein disclosures, are broken after long periods of investigation and journalistic grunt-work. Only after they break do you se…
As is true of all Media.
I don't recall any major Fox News articles or pieces on the Sexual Harassment claims of Bill O'Reily. But the story got out, because we have competing media companies in the USA.
That's the benefit of free-market competition. Unfortunately, it also means that whenever one media company sounds the alarm, the readers need to be careful with the evidence.
Allegedly, the Koch Brothers don't plan to take an active role in the company. "Steve Lombardo, a spokesman for Koch Industries, also said that the Kochs had no plans to take an active role in the expanded company. “This is a passive financial investment made through our equity development arm,” Mr. Lombardo said. The company’s role in the transaction, he said, was similar to that of a bank." Regardless of what you t…
(For example, it started peddling "Mueller needs to resign" nonsense after the indictments under easily falsifiable excuses.)
[See https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/30/murdoch-fox-muelle...]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only two? Murdoch, Turner ... I'm sure there are many more.
Turner's network didn't turn full on opposition till recently though and he's out of the picture anyway. 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.
It's an interesting article discussing the transition between the days of the media having a stranglehold on information dissemination and the transition to modern times where the internet has mostly supplanted their role there. And the massive implications and changes that took place internally, and now externally, during this process.
[1] - https://www.brookings.edu/research/essays/2014/bad-news
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jeff Bezos owns SpaceX competitor Blue Origin, and was a big Hillary Clinton supporter.
It's still an assumption to connect the paper's content to Bezos though. That he has William Randolph Hearst level control in the WaPo seems like a common conspiracy theory.
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.
Has there ever been such a thing? Were the newspaper barons of the past neutral?