Trump needs the media and the media needs Trump

[Dim Bulb]

Boss I think I disagree with you. I think you are wrong. If it weren't for President Trump the media would invent him to get clicks. Clicks from you to justify your world view of the Evil Plotting Media and clicks from Progressives to justify their world view that President Trump is evil. Sounds like you've bought into the dynamic hook line and sinker. I just disagree with your approach is all.

Hey, I would love it if the media were unbiased and honest. The fact is, they're not. Every media source has a political bias and there's nothing I can do about that except recognize it. I laughed a few weeks ago when some progressive posted the graphic of all the news media outlets on a poster that was supposedly showing how far left or right they were and how much integrity they had, etc. Of course it was a total joke... nothing resembling the truth. But it has been plastered all over social media and message boards as if it's some kind of legitimate credible research.

I stand by my comments. Trump is the most powerful man in the world now... he's the President of the United States. He doesn't NEED the media. The media doesn't need (or want) him. He's not obligated to the media, he doesn't have to satisfy the media, he's not there to please the media. The media has an obligation to it's subscribers/readers/viewers. In that respect, they need access to the president. So there's really no 'mutual' dynamic about it.

The Media, understanding that we're speaking of commercial, big-corporate media, has an obligation only to its stockholders. Were that not the case it might actually act responsibly. Again... they're there to make a profit, not to serve any kind of ideology. Ideologies don't make profits. Freak shows do.

The rest of your analysis here might be true for some generic president but it's in no way true for Rump. Unless he gets help for his crippling Narcissistic Personality Disorder he absolutely needs TV, Twitter and anything else that will bring him what he craves and what he's always craved--------- ATTENTION.

Well in a sense, you are right... they have a responsibility to their stockholders but then that goes back to the marketing of their product to the consumer. If their competitor has better access to the president, they can't deliver a competitive product. And it just so happens that most of the powerful media outlets have stockholders who are mostly progressive lefties. So their desire is to have the product be more tailored to promote their progressive narrative. Because they seek the widest consumer base, they have to give the appearance of objectivity and impartiality but this is a facade.

As for Trump... again, he holds the most powerful office in the world. He doesn't need attention, he has attention because he IS the president. What he MAY have needed in the past is irrelevant now. A snow skier going up hill needs momentum.... craves it... wants it... has to have it... but once he has crested the top of the hill, momentum is not important anymore. He doesn't need it. He is going to naturally have it because of physics... he's going downhill now and gravity will provide all the momentum he needs. This is where we're at with Trump now. You are thinking he needs something he doesn't need anymore, it comes naturally now, he IS the president.

Most shareholders of the giant media are lefties? First I so totally disagree with splitting the world into two groups because it hurts America. Let's leave that aside.

Most media corporations are owned by institutional investors. TRowe, Blackrock, etc. This talking point that, for example, CBS or NBC Uni is owned by lefties is essentially incorrect. Their Boards are appointed by their shareholders. Their shareholders are pure capitalists, believe the facts, not some talking point from wherever.

 

[Boss]

He had been bested in public. As he stormed off the slope, leaving behind a trail of equipment, she recalled, Mr. Trump could not contain his embarrassment.

“I’m not going to do this,” she recalled him saying, “for anybody, including Ivana.” << --- What Drives Rump? Fear of Losing Status
Again, part of the NPD you like to pretend doesn't exist.

What do you want me to defend Trump's personality? Hey... I agree, he seems like quite a self-absorbed asshole.

Here's something to make your panties wet...



What the hell does this have to do with the thread OP or topic???

 

[Boss]

Most shareholders of the giant media are lefties? First I so totally disagree with splitting the world into two groups because it hurts America. Let's leave that aside.

Most media corporations are owned by institutional investors. TRowe, Blackrock, etc. This talking point that, for example, CBS or NBC Uni is owned by lefties is essentially incorrect. Their Boards are appointed by their shareholders. Their shareholders are pure capitalists, believe the facts, not some talking point from wherever.

Nope... I've worked in that industry all my life, they are mostly lefty progressives... everyone in the media and entertainment business. That's just a fact.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Larry Bird needed Magic Johnson. Muhammed Ali needed Joe Frazier.

Those of you screaming about the media bias towards Trump are not only missing the point you are falling into their symbiotic trap. Keep clicking and carrying on with the Ponzi Scheme of Outrage. More clicks more dollars for the media. They absolutely love having him where he is complaining about how biased they are. It's a cash generator for them.

Keep it up you're feeding the very machine you profess to hate.

Who cares if they are making money? Let them make all the money they want writing about President Trump's speeches to the people and his tweets. Too many of them, even once great newspapers like the Washington Post and New York Times, behaved irresponsibly during the election and they will have to show they have rediscovered what journalistic ethics means before they can be taken seriously again.

 

[Dim Bulb]

Most shareholders of the giant media are lefties? First I so totally disagree with splitting the world into two groups because it hurts America. Let's leave that aside.

Most media corporations are owned by institutional investors. TRowe, Blackrock, etc. This talking point that, for example, CBS or NBC Uni is owned by lefties is essentially incorrect. Their Boards are appointed by their shareholders. Their shareholders are pure capitalists, believe the facts, not some talking point from wherever.

Nope... I've worked in that industry all my life, they are mostly lefty progressives... everyone in the media and entertainment business. That's just a fact.

You've worked with institutional investors your whole life and they are all mostly lefty progressives? Wow, the ones I've been working with my whole life are anything but. Perhaps you are talking about the officers and management within actual media companies. I was responding to your quote above that most media stockholders are lefties. That ain't true my boss. And I don't know the senior management of every media company well enough to make the generalization that you did. Your facts about institutional investors are counter factual.

 

[Boss]

You've worked with institutional investors your whole life and they are all mostly lefty progressives? Wow, the ones I've been working with my whole life are anything but. Perhaps you are talking about the officers and management within actual media companies. I was responding to your quote above that most media stockholders are lefties. That ain't true my boss. And I don't know the senior management of every media company well enough to make the generalization that you did. Your facts about institutional investors are counter factual.

No, I've worked in the media and entertainment business my whole life. As an officer, manager, owner, stockholder, board member, investor and CEO. I've dealt with the people in that industry on a close intimate level. And yes, they are mostly left-wing progressives. I'm not making a generalization, after all, I am not a progressive lefty. There are exceptions, certainly. But MOST are lefties.

Now... I can't answer about "institutional investors" which I assume you mean hedge fund managers and stock brokers... they are a mixed bag but they don't have too much say in the day-to-day operations of the board. They are simply making investments based on prospectus reports and such.

My "facts" aren't wrong unless my entire life has just been a figment of my imagination... I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

 

[Dim Bulb]

You've worked with institutional investors your whole life and they are all mostly lefty progressives? Wow, the ones I've been working with my whole life are anything but. Perhaps you are talking about the officers and management within actual media companies. I was responding to your quote above that most media stockholders are lefties. That ain't true my boss. And I don't know the senior management of every media company well enough to make the generalization that you did. Your facts about institutional investors are counter factual.

No, I've worked in the media and entertainment business my whole life. As an officer, manager, owner, stockholder, board member, investor and CEO. I've dealt with the people in that industry on a close intimate level. And yes, they are mostly left-wing progressives. I'm not making a generalization, after all, I am not a progressive lefty. There are exceptions, certainly. But MOST are lefties.

Now... I can't answer about "institutional investors" which I assume you mean hedge fund managers and stock brokers... they are a mixed bag but they don't have too much say in the day-to-day operations of the board. They are simply making investments based on prospectus reports and such.

My "facts" aren't wrong unless my entire life has just been a figment of my imagination... I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

 

[Dim Bulb]

I bend to your superior knowledge of the management of media companies and congratulate you on what sounds like a fulfilling career.

You said: "And it just so happens that most of the powerful media outlets have stockholders who are mostly progressive lefties."

You meant: "And it just so happens that most of the powerful media outlets have managers who are mostly progressive lefties."

The stockholders of these mega companies are institutional investors. If you were the CEO of a public media company, you understand who these people are/were. They are a lot of things, but they are manifestly not uniformly "lefties." Institutional investors are banks, investment banks, not necessarily "hedge funds" etc. They are investment companies that put these stocks into mutual funds and ETFs and sell shares of those. These sound like "lefties" to you?

So accepting your desire to separate the world into "us" v. "them" (which I believe is not intellectual nor helpful to democracy), I understand your point to be that most managers of large media companies are "lefties." As I said above, I have no knowledge of the uniformity of political beliefs of senior managers at all media companies in the US.

 

[Boss]

I bend to your superior knowledge of the management of media companies and congratulate you on what sounds like a fulfilling career.

You said: "And it just so happens that most of the powerful media outlets have stockholders who are mostly progressive lefties."

You meant: "And it just so happens that most of the powerful media outlets have managers who are mostly progressive lefties."

The stockholders of these mega companies are institutional investors. If you were the CEO of a public media company, you understand who these people are/were. They are a lot of things, but they are manifestly not uniformly "lefties." Institutional investors are banks, investment banks, not necessarily "hedge funds" etc. They are investment companies that put these stocks into mutual funds and ETFs and sell shares of those. These sound like "lefties" to you?

So accepting your desire to separate the world into "us" v. "them" (which I believe is not intellectual nor helpful to democracy), I understand your point to be that most managers of large media companies are "lefties." As I said above, I have no knowledge of the uniformity of political beliefs of senior managers at all media companies in the US.

Well no, actually, with every major media outlet you and I are familiar with, the controlling stockholders are not institutional investors, they are wealthy business tycoons, usually of the same families. I never said they were "manifestly" or "uniformly" lefties. I said they are mostly lefties. So you are attempting to morph my statement into a generalization I never made.

 

[Dim Bulb]

I bend to your superior knowledge of the management of media companies and congratulate you on what sounds like a fulfilling career.

You said: "And it just so happens that most of the powerful media outlets have stockholders who are mostly progressive lefties."

You meant: "And it just so happens that most of the powerful media outlets have managers who are mostly progressive lefties."

The stockholders of these mega companies are institutional investors. If you were the CEO of a public media company, you understand who these people are/were. They are a lot of things, but they are manifestly not uniformly "lefties." Institutional investors are banks, investment banks, not necessarily "hedge funds" etc. They are investment companies that put these stocks into mutual funds and ETFs and sell shares of those. These sound like "lefties" to you?

So accepting your desire to separate the world into "us" v. "them" (which I believe is not intellectual nor helpful to democracy), I understand your point to be that most managers of large media companies are "lefties." As I said above, I have no knowledge of the uniformity of political beliefs of senior managers at all media companies in the US.

Well no, actually, with every major media outlet you and I are familiar with, the controlling stockholders are not institutional investors, they are wealthy business tycoons, usually of the same families. I never said they were "manifestly" or "uniformly" lefties. I said they are mostly lefties. So you are attempting to morph my statement into a generalization I never made.

Okay. It sounds to me like your need to be right is exceeded by your willingness to accept facts. There is no such thing as a "controlling shareholder" in most Fortune 100 publicly held companies, even with the new 3-3-20 proxy access initiatives. My intention in using the word "uniformly" was not to suggest "unanimity." It was intended to be interchangeable with "mostly." You call me on that use but you fudge the difference between "stockholders" and now you say "controlling stockholders." Again I express no opinion on the managers of most large media companies political views. But I do express an opinion on public companies and their stockholders.

Having said all that, if I'm right that you need to be right, this is for you: You're right. I'm wrong.

Feel better?

 

[Boss]

Okay. It sounds to me like your need to be right is exceeded by your willingness to accept facts. There is no such thing as a "controlling shareholder" in most Fortune 100 publicly held companies, even with the new 3-3-20 proxy access initiatives. My intention in using the word "uniformly" was not to suggest "unanimity." It was intended to be interchangeable with "mostly." You call me on that use but you fudge the difference between "stockholders" and now you say "controlling stockholders." Again I express no opinion on the managers of most large media companies political views. But I do express an opinion on public companies and their stockholders.

Having said all that, if I'm right that you need to be right, this is for you: You're right. I'm wrong.

Feel better?

Name a media outlet and let's research who owns controlling stock? We can settle this really quick.

 

[Dim Bulb]

Okay. It sounds to me like your need to be right is exceeded by your willingness to accept facts. There is no such thing as a "controlling shareholder" in most Fortune 100 publicly held companies, even with the new 3-3-20 proxy access initiatives. My intention in using the word "uniformly" was not to suggest "unanimity." It was intended to be interchangeable with "mostly." You call me on that use but you fudge the difference between "stockholders" and now you say "controlling stockholders." Again I express no opinion on the managers of most large media companies political views. But I do express an opinion on public companies and their stockholders.

Having said all that, if I'm right that you need to be right, this is for you: You're right. I'm wrong.

Feel better?

Name a media outlet and let's research who owns controlling stock? We can settle this really quick.

You're right. I'm wrong.

CBS Major Holders | Insider Transactions | CBS Corporation Class B Common Stock - Yahoo Finance

 

[Dim Bulb]

Okay. It sounds to me like your need to be right is exceeded by your willingness to accept facts. There is no such thing as a "controlling shareholder" in most Fortune 100 publicly held companies, even with the new 3-3-20 proxy access initiatives. My intention in using the word "uniformly" was not to suggest "unanimity." It was intended to be interchangeable with "mostly." You call me on that use but you fudge the difference between "stockholders" and now you say "controlling stockholders." Again I express no opinion on the managers of most large media companies political views. But I do express an opinion on public companies and their stockholders.

Having said all that, if I'm right that you need to be right, this is for you: You're right. I'm wrong.

Feel better?

Name a media outlet and let's research who owns controlling stock? We can settle this really quick.

You're right. I'm wrong.

CBS Major Holders | Insider Transactions | CBS Corporation Class B Common Stock - Yahoo Finance

You're right. I'm wrong Part Deux (Comcast owners of NBC Uni)

CMCSA Major Holders | Insider Transactions | Comcast Corporation Stock - Yahoo Finance

 

[Boss]

Yes, a majority (by law) of their actual stock is held by institutional investors but they have no fiduciary control over the board of directors. Those are the direct stockholders and they are mostly liberal progressives. Do you think Vanguard and Merrill-Lynch call up CBS and tell them how to present their news?

 

[Dim Bulb]

Yes, a majority (by law) of their actual stock is held by institutional investors but they have no fiduciary control over the board of directors. Those are the direct stockholders and they are mostly liberal progressives. Do you think Vanguard and Merrill-Lynch call up CBS and tell them how to present their news?

"By law?" There is no law of any kind that prescribes how much stock should be held by institutional investors. That's just plain wrong. And I deal with TRowe and Vanguard et al all the time. And there is a constant "shareholde outreach" through which Boards of Directors and managers engage with them about management issues. And TRowe does indeed have the ability to elect the directors, not just talk to them.

Your desire to be right is showing again, so you have morphed your argument from "most stockholders are lefties" to "well, they might not be lefties but they don't really control the companies' editorial views." A good point and mostly correct I would suspect, but not the point I was asking you about. It remains that you were wrong about what you said about stockholders being "lefties" and you are wrong about this "law" that says how many stockholders must be institutional. It just doesn't exist, my friend.

Having said all that: You're right. I'm wrong.