Who Owns the Media? Industry Giants, Saudi Princes and Australian Robber Barons

[whitehall]

Let's cut to the chase. The strange Brit who started the discussion reminds us of the "old days" when the media consisted of broadsides nailed to trees. Now the media is a huge conglomerate generating billions of dollars in revenue. Is there a problem and how do the whiners suggest we fix it? It's preposterous to suggest that government could run the media. So the other solution is to storm the castle and take control of corporations and distribute the wealth "to each according to his needs". Sound familiar? The reason I brought up fossil fuel is that everything is interconnected. The reason Saudi Arabia is so influential in the media and other areas of American society is simple enough. They produce incredible volumes of fossil fuel and get wealthy from it. Left wingers apparently have no problem with this concept. America is equally blessed in fossil fuel but our government chooses to buy it from foreign governments out of some misplaced concern for world climate. Everybody gets rich except the US and the left whines about Saudi corporations. Again. what do we do about corporate wealth? The only solution that seems to be hinted at by the radical left is extreme government control over the production and distribution of goods and services or anarchy.

 

[Pogo]

Let's cut to the chase. The strange Brit who started the discussion reminds us of the "old days" when the media consisted of broadsides nailed to trees. Now the media is a huge conglomerate generating billions of dollars in revenue. Is there a problem and how do the whiners suggest we fix it? It's preposterous to suggest that government could run the media. So the other solution is to storm the castle and take control of corporations and distribute the wealth "to each according to his needs". Sound familiar?

We fix it the same way we fix any other monopoly-- break them up and make them divest. Remember when if you wanted a phone there was only one company you could go to? And you couldn't even own your phones? It's like that, except worse, because a phone is less of a necessity than access to information channels. And again, I mean active, not passive access.

None of this has anything to do with "wealth" but with resources -- the access to the public forum. The "wealth" would be the physical studios and transmitters and cameras the broadcasters own. That equipment is their property and it stays their property. What's in question is the extent to which they may use that equipment to the exclusion of the rest of us.

The reason I brought up fossil fuel is that everything is interconnected. The reason Saudi Arabia is so influential in the media and other areas of American society is simple enough. They produce incredible volumes of fossil fuel and get wealthy from it. Left wingers apparently have no problem with this concept.

Right. Initiatives on solar and wind and water power, concepts of recycling, and fuel conservation never come from the Left. It's not like they're the Prius buyers.



This is still irrelevant. We're not talking about physical tangible resources. It's not the transmitter. It's where you can use it on our (OUR) airwaves.

America is equally blessed in fossil fuel but our government chooses to buy it from foreign governments out of some misplaced concern for world climate. Everybody gets rich except the US and the left whines about Saudi corporations. Again. what do we do about corporate wealth? The only solution that seems to be hinted at by the radical left is extreme government control over the production and distribution of goods and services or anarchy.

Again, you're off the topic. Nothing in this is about any kind of physical resource. Does not apply. Corporate wealth is not at issue here. Corporate power is.

Analogy: imagine everything on the internet was owned and controlled by ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and the Weather Channel, and everything that happened had to go through one of them. You good with that?

 

[whitehall]

Let's cut to the chase. The strange Brit who started the discussion reminds us of the "old days" when the media consisted of broadsides nailed to trees. Now the media is a huge conglomerate generating billions of dollars in revenue. Is there a problem and how do the whiners suggest we fix it? It's preposterous to suggest that government could run the media. So the other solution is to storm the castle and take control of corporations and distribute the wealth "to each according to his needs". Sound familiar?

We fix it the same way we fix any other monopoly-- break them up and make them divest. Remember when if you wanted a phone there was only one company you could go to? And you couldn't even own your phones? It's like that, except worse, because a phone is less of a necessity than access to information channels. And again, I mean active, not passive access.

None of this has anything to do with "wealth" but with resources -- the access to the public forum. The "wealth" would be the physical studios and transmitters and cameras the broadcasters own. That equipment is their property and it stays their property. What's in question is the extent to which they may use that equipment to the exclusion of the rest of us.

The reason I brought up fossil fuel is that everything is interconnected. The reason Saudi Arabia is so influential in the media and other areas of American society is simple enough. They produce incredible volumes of fossil fuel and get wealthy from it. Left wingers apparently have no problem with this concept.

Right. Initiatives on solar and wind and water power, concepts of recycling, and fuel conservation never come from the Left. It's not like they're the Prius buyers.



This is still irrelevant. We're not talking about physical tangible resources. It's not the transmitter. It's where you can use it on our (OUR) airwaves.

America is equally blessed in fossil fuel but our government chooses to buy it from foreign governments out of some misplaced concern for world climate. Everybody gets rich except the US and the left whines about Saudi corporations. Again. what do we do about corporate wealth? The only solution that seems to be hinted at by the radical left is extreme government control over the production and distribution of goods and services or anarchy.

Again, you're off the topic. Nothing in this is about any kind of physical resource. Does not apply. Corporate wealth is not at issue here. Corporate power is.

Analogy: imagine everything on the internet was owned and controlled by ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and the Weather Channel, and everything that happened had to go through one of them. You good with that?

Internet servers are gigantic corporations. You get the weather from the weather channel. You pay for the service and the greatest Country in the world makes sure you have a choice of what blog sites you want to watch just like cable and newspapers. The left even has tax exempt propaganda outlets like Media Matters who feed information to left wing blog sites like Huffington. What more do you want? Is certain corporate power more scary than other corporate power? What do we do about it? There is no free lunch. Do we give all the power to the government and let politicians decide when corporations become too powerful? Government control of the production and distribution of goods and services is the definition of fascism.

 

[numan]

Can you imagine if a Saudi person owned msnbc? oh man.

I presume you are being humorous.

Guess who is a major owner in Fox "News"? From the link in the Opening Post :

News? Prince al-Walid bin Talal owns 5.5% of Fox News.

Prince al-Walid bin Talal stated recently that he used his influence to change Fox's headlines. During the recent riots in Muslim neighborhoods in France Fox was using the term "Muslim Riots" to describe rioting by Muslim youths and Prince bin Talal claims that called Fox News had them change the title of the story to "Youth Riots". Source. worldnetdaily.com

In another instance, where supposedly conservative Fox News should have been up in arms, was the deal by a United Arab Emirates holding company to buy U.S. ports. Suddenly Fox went from being against the deal to very supportive of a deal that would have put US container ports in foreign hands. A U.A.E. sovereign wealth fund also owns major shares of Fox.

The "good ole boys" that hang on every word that Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly utters might not be so happy when they hear who is whispering in their idol's ears.

[emphases added]
.

 

[numan]

If corporations don't keep the media running who else is there? The government?

SMALL BUSINESS, Einstein. Private owners. You and me. OK, well not you, but everybody else.
(Oprah voice) "You get a radio license and you get a radio license and you get a TV license..."

"We the People". That's who.

Damn, some people are thick.

You don't know the half of it, Pogo!!

You should read the guff Whitehall writes about about Global Warming!! · ·

Well, no, you shouldn't read it, since Whitehall is an idiot about that, too, and it would be a waste of your time.
.

 

[MarcATL]

Can you imagine if a Saudi person owned msnbc? oh man.

It would be worse than BEN-GAHH-ZEEEeeeeeeeee....!!!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Can you imagine if a Saudi person owned msnbc? oh man.

I presume you are being humorous.

Guess who is a major owner in Fox "News"? From the link in the Opening Post :

News? Prince al-Walid bin Talal owns 5.5% of Fox News.

Prince al-Walid bin Talal stated recently that he used his influence to change Fox's headlines. During the recent riots in Muslim neighborhoods in France Fox was using the term "Muslim Riots" to describe rioting by Muslim youths and Prince bin Talal claims that called Fox News had them change the title of the story to "Youth Riots". Source. worldnetdaily.com

In another instance, where supposedly conservative Fox News should have been up in arms, was the deal by a United Arab Emirates holding company to buy U.S. ports. Suddenly Fox went from being against the deal to very supportive of a deal that would have put US container ports in foreign hands. A U.A.E. sovereign wealth fund also owns major shares of Fox.

The "good ole boys" that hang on every word that Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly utters might not be so happy when they hear who is whispering in their idol's ears.

[emphases added]
.

He controls what fux "news" watchers see.





And, fux "news" watchers know it.









.

 

[jasonnfree]

If corporations don't keep the media running who else is there? The government? Lefties hate lobbyists and corporations and foreign wealth and sometimes the Constitution. What do they like? Anarchy, socialism, fascism, communism?

SMALL BUSINESS, Einstein. Private owners. You and me. OK, well not you but everybody else.
(Oprah voice) "You get a radio license and you get a radio license and you get a TV license..."

"We the People". That's who.

Damn, some people are thick.

"We the people" are invested in corporations. Every pension system is invested in corporate wealth. The DOW is all about corporate wealth. How is social security doing? As long as the "OWS" anarchists haven't shut down the DOW "we the people" can still buy a share or 100,000 shares in the media of our choice. Here's a tip, if America invested in fossil fuel the way the Saudis do and made energy cheap enough for small businesses to survive it might change the equation a bit.

America's invested in fossil fuels by allowing the taxpayer funded military to make the middle east safe for oil companie's profit. The oil then comes here, is refined, then goes on the world market. No discount for americans. You'd think at least military personnel that risked their lives for oil company profit by "serving" in the middle east would get a discount at the pump? No way.
We the people can't just buy a hundred thousand shares of the media. Only the wealthy can. And there's only a few players in the media game. Ever notice it's like a restaurant when you turn on the news? Instead of the soup of the day it's the news of the day? The big story will either be trayvon martin or a plane crash or whatever. Flip the channels. Same story. You certainly won't read or hear anything about the big trade deal obama's been cooking up behind our backs, or how the koch brothers who are trying to become media players were convicted of stealing oil on government land and got away with only paying a fine, whereas an ordinary citizen would get decades in prison for the same offense.