SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Australian *cough American* media mogul Rupert Murdoch is trying to buy Time Warner. An initial bid of $80bn has been rejected by TW executives, but it seems Murdoch is hell-bent on getting his way. The repercussions for the diversity of the US media industry look bleak; the means of mass communication and public influence is coming perilously close to a sum of one!
If you read all the reader comments left behind at this article and this article, you will get the impression that 99% of the readers do not want this outcome for the US media industry. If Murdoch succeeds, then the few other players left standing will be forced like dominoes to do the same thing. Such a state is not too far away from its ultimate conclusion... 'tyrrany'. From the article:
While Murdoch has made numerous audacious "bet the farm" moves to build his media empire over the years, the 83-year-old is determined that his last major deal is capped by a safe transition of power to his sons.
Earlier this year he laid the groundwork by bringing back eldest son Lachlan, the heir apparent who walked away from the empire almost a decade ago to set up his own investment company and move to Australia. The 42-year-old was named as non-executive co-chairman of the entertainment and publishing companies, alongside his father.
At the same time, younger brother James was also elevated to co-chief operating officer, with direct responsibility for developing Fox's pay-TV aspirations globally. The 41-year-old moved to New York to consolidate his position within the company, but also to distance himself from intense criticism of his handling of phone hacking as executive chairman of News UK.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday July 19 2014, @06:45AM
sticking only to "news" channels, Time Warner owns CNN and HLN; i know CNN doesn't have any integrity (no idea bout HLN), but it would definitely not help if the channel was made even more "infotainment" and/or partisan, like Fox News is. TW also owns HBO, so my biggest concern would be that this could lead to influence over John Oliver's show, which has such great promise.
most everything else is just standard entertainment/movie channels (mostly the Turner empire - TBS, TCM, Cartoon Network, etc), so i'm not going to bother trying to speculate about how he might be able to inject his views into them to influence people's opinions, although i seem to remember reading that it is something that he does with his media companies.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Saturday July 19 2014, @07:49AM
Fox is no more partisan than is CNN or MSNBC. If your complaint is that they just don't follow YOUR party, just say that, instead of painting them with a brush you seemingly reserve just for them.
Murdoch has no chance of winning this battle, because both the FCC and the DOJ will not allow that kind of consolidation. Murdoch probably knows this and would just spin off CNN/HLN and spit them out, keeping the rest of TW. Still, its not going to happen.
Murdoch is no fool. He is trying to build an empire with a wide base, because he knows mainstream TV news is on its death bed, and a total make over is going to happen soon. He wants to be holding the biggest pieces when the deck gets reshuffled, and the new structure emerges. Its probably going to be web based, its probably going to be more diverse, it will be more distributed, with reporting centers in multiple countries, and far less of a US centric view. In short it will probably be everything you have been screaming for over the last several years.
He knows he can't build that without owning the noisiest assets, the loudest complainers: The current crop of news networks. The same networks which are doing a wonderful job of telling us just about nothing we need to know, while totally missing huge stories happening right under their noses.
The story isn't about what you think its about. Its not about lack of diversity. Murdoch has no problem with diversity. The story is about the rebuilding of the way this country and the world gets their news. He wants to upset the apple cart. The Apples are mostly wormy and rotten anyway, so I see no reason to rush in and protect them.
I actually wish him luck, even while recognizing this plan is going nowhere.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 19 2014, @01:33PM
The same networks which are doing a wonderful job of telling us just about nothing we need to know, while totally missing huge stories happening right under their noses.
But...but without CNN, where am I going to get 24/7 news coverage and conspiracy theories of the downed Malaysian plane(s) without having to hear about the IRS and Benghazi and Border Patrol and NSA and Justice Department and FCC scandals, any of which on their own would have brought down any other president?
(Score: 1) by Bobs on Saturday July 19 2014, @02:49PM
"Its not about lack of diversity. Murdoch has no problem with diversity. "
Oh really? How many Non right-wing media operations does he operate?
(crickets)
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 19 2014, @02:59PM
> Oh really? How many Non right-wing media operations does he operate?
Fox Television (not fox news) is not right wing.
20th Century Fox is not right wing either - hell they created fight club which Murdoch is on record as personally detesting.
Now, you might make an argument that mainstream american culture is right wing itself so both of those properties actually are right wing. And I would tend to agree with that position. BUT, by that definition practically every commercial media property is right wing which then makes the original point kind of meaningless.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 19 2014, @03:05PM
> Murdoch has no problem with diversity.
Only for certain definitions of diversity.
As long as he's in control then he's fine with it. But that inherently limits the diversity because only stuff he's OK with will be permitted. Even if he were a "benevolent dictator" he'd still be a dictator.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 19 2014, @08:17PM
Yes, since the demise of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 (Ronald Reagan/Mark Fowler), commercial media has become partisan.
Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting says that all 3 of the "news" outlets you named are unreliable as sources of information.
http://fair.org/topic/fox/ [fair.org] Google's 3270 results [google.com]
http://fair.org/topic/cnn/ [fair.org] Google's 2850 results [google.com]
http://fair.org/topic/msnbc/ [fair.org] Google's 2070 results [google.com]
If your "news" outlet has advertisements, their "news" is also manipulated to suit the sponsors.
This includes "public" broadcasting (PBS/NPR).
Listener-sponsored Pacifica Radio [wikipedia.org] is the only broadcast outlet I know of that does not accept any corporate money.
Pacifica has been doing it that way since 1949.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 19 2014, @03:02PM
> sticking only to "news" channels, Time Warner owns CNN and HLN;
Wrong Time-Warner.
Time Warner Cable [wikipedia.org] was spun off from Time Warner in 2009.
Time Warner Cable owns no channels.