8 ms·

> Pearson, the owner of the Financial Times, which has had a non-controlling 50% stake in us since 1928, is selling. Three-fifths of those shares will go to an

by rm999 11y ago

> Pearson, the owner of the Financial Times, which has had a non-controlling 50% stake in us since 1928, is selling. Three-fifths of those shares will go to an existing shareholder—Exor, the holding company of the Agnelli family. The rest will be bought back by our parent company, The Economist Group. Phew, I was really worried they were selling to News Corp or something when I saw the headline. I've often thought of the Economist as the weekly version of FT, but the two are actually quite independent from each other (both in editorial control and legal control). Pearson had a 50% stake in the Economist but only 6/13 board seats. And the Economist has been great about fiercely guarding its editorial independence.

potatoman2 11y ago
What's wrong with News Corp?
- mpweiher 11y ago
  Aport from everything?
- pyre 11y ago
  A better question is what do you think isn't wrong with News Corp.?
  - riffraff 11y ago
    no it isn't, unless you assume the person you reply to already knows about the topic and is defending it. But if you consider the question as "I don't know what is wrong with news corp" than it's the best question you can ask.
- fweespeech 11y ago
  News Corp biases its companies in favor of News Corp. The Economist has always been the hallmark of an independent newspaper that published a consistent of opinions in line with reality. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/news-corp-bias-against-kevin-rudd-showed-up-in-independent-study-diary-reveals-20131106-2x1ig.html http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/news-c... http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/21/attacks-on-abc-expose-new-corps-hidden-agenda http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/21/attacks-on-abc-... And I don't think anyone reasonable believes Fox is anything but a Conservatives-centric news network that plays out the News Corp official line in all situations.
  - kuni-toko-tachi 11y ago
    The Economist is the propaganda mouthpiece of the elite and it's cover is a revealing indication of future plans. It's stories are easily debunked as fiction even with cursory internet searches.
  - dredmorbius 11y ago
    The Economist does in fact have a marked and explicit editorial mission to promote free trade principles, set forth in their Prospectus[1], specifically, that "ORIGINAL LEADING ARTICLES, in which free-trade principles will be most rigidly applied to all the important questions of the day—political events—and parliamentary discussions; and particularly to all such as relate immediately to revenue, commerce, and agriculture; or otherwise affect the material interests of the country", and "POPULAR MOVEMENTS: A report and account of all popular movements throughout the country in favour of Free Trade." Unlike some organisations (e.g., NewsCorp), these biases are at least explicitly stated, if not widely known. While I generally respect it, I find its skew at times quite painful to swallow. At least the writing is generally well executed. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ Notes: 1. http://www.economist.com/node/1873493 http://www.economist.com/node/1873493
    - fweespeech 11y ago
      There is a world of difference between a group with the integrity to state its biases publicly and one that hides them in a dozen puppet papers.
      - dredmorbius 11y ago
        Well, yes, but that wasn't my argument. It also doesn't address any unstated biases The Economist Group might have.
        fweespeech 11y ago
        I don't believe they have unstated biases on an institutional scale. Individual author may have biases but all of them do.
- arethuza 11y ago
  I find it impossible to think of News Corp without recalling Sun headlines like "It's The Sun Wot Won It" and "Gotcha": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_The_Sun_Wot_Won_It https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_The_Sun_Wot_Won_It
  - ctz 11y ago
    Don't forget "The Truth".
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Its what would happen if a publishing company was run by Darth Vader and the Emperor, with occasional consulting performed by Dick Cheney.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    Well Glenn Beck was as close as you could get to Jar Jar binks ...
    - M2Ys4U 11y ago
      Jar Jar Binks is far more likeable.
- andrepd 11y ago
  The most recent and most serious scandal involving News Corporation was 2011 phone hacking scandal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_News_Corporation_scandals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_News_Corporation_scandals). Gives you an idea of what sort of scumbags run that mega-conglomerate.
  - bduerst 11y ago
    That's the most recent? Just in July there were supposedly part of a giant plan with the MPAA to slander Google to manipulate stock prices. It's amazing anyone takes NewsCorp seriously. http://www.techtimes.com/articles/72607/20150731/mpaa-secret-plan-to-attack-google-via-media-revealed-in-emails.htm http://www.techtimes.com/articles/72607/20150731/mpaa-secret...
ucaetano 11y ago
"Pearson had a 50% stake in the Economist but only 6/13 board seats." And the board isn't even that powerful, it needs consent from the Trustees for many things, such as appointing the editor and the chairman: http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/trustees.html http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/trustee...
eddieh 11y ago
My sentiments exactly. It is a breath of fresh air to see a company depart from a huge multinational like Pearson. Somehow I wasn't aware that Pearson had a stake in the Economist and I frequent "Who Owns What" http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php. Now that I know I'm not subsidizing Pearson with my subscription, I'll be even happier to renew.
- jazzyk 11y ago
  You will be subsidizing a few rich industrialist families instead, among them the Rothschilds, who increased their stake from 21% to 26%. Thought you might want want to know :-)
udev 11y ago
> Phew, I was really worried they were selling to News Corp or something when I saw the headline. I am more wary of one of those greasy-activist-investor types coming into the picture and demanding the publication "does more for the investors", i.e. more Kardashian-style (garbage) news.
- floatrock 11y ago
  You can read all about how good activist investors are in the Economist's cover story a few months back: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21642169-why-activist-investors-are-good-public-company-capitalisms-unlikely-heroes http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21642169-why-activist-... ;)

by rm999 11y ago

potatoman2 11y ago

What's wrong with News Corp?

mpweiher 11y ago
Aport from everything?
pyre 11y ago
A better question is what do you think isn't wrong with News Corp.?
- riffraff 11y ago
  no it isn't, unless you assume the person you reply to already knows about the topic and is defending it. But if you consider the question as "I don't know what is wrong with news corp" than it's the best question you can ask.
fweespeech 11y ago
News Corp biases its companies in favor of News Corp. The Economist has always been the hallmark of an independent newspaper that published a consistent of opinions in line with reality. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/news-corp-bias-against-kevin-rudd-showed-up-in-independent-study-diary-reveals-20131106-2x1ig.html http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/news-c... http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/21/attacks-on-abc-expose-new-corps-hidden-agenda http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/21/attacks-on-abc-... And I don't think anyone reasonable believes Fox is anything but a Conservatives-centric news network that plays out the News Corp official line in all situations.
- kuni-toko-tachi 11y ago
  The Economist is the propaganda mouthpiece of the elite and it's cover is a revealing indication of future plans. It's stories are easily debunked as fiction even with cursory internet searches.
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  The Economist does in fact have a marked and explicit editorial mission to promote free trade principles, set forth in their Prospectus[1], specifically, that "ORIGINAL LEADING ARTICLES, in which free-trade principles will be most rigidly applied to all the important questions of the day—political events—and parliamentary discussions; and particularly to all such as relate immediately to revenue, commerce, and agriculture; or otherwise affect the material interests of the country", and "POPULAR MOVEMENTS: A report and account of all popular movements throughout the country in favour of Free Trade." Unlike some organisations (e.g., NewsCorp), these biases are at least explicitly stated, if not widely known. While I generally respect it, I find its skew at times quite painful to swallow. At least the writing is generally well executed. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ Notes: 1. http://www.economist.com/node/1873493 http://www.economist.com/node/1873493
  - fweespeech 11y ago
    There is a world of difference between a group with the integrity to state its biases publicly and one that hides them in a dozen puppet papers.
    - dredmorbius 11y ago
      Well, yes, but that wasn't my argument. It also doesn't address any unstated biases The Economist Group might have.
      - fweespeech 11y ago
        I don't believe they have unstated biases on an institutional scale. Individual author may have biases but all of them do.
arethuza 11y ago
I find it impossible to think of News Corp without recalling Sun headlines like "It's The Sun Wot Won It" and "Gotcha": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_The_Sun_Wot_Won_It https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_The_Sun_Wot_Won_It
- ctz 11y ago
  Don't forget "The Truth".
toomuchtodo 11y ago
Its what would happen if a publishing company was run by Darth Vader and the Emperor, with occasional consulting performed by Dick Cheney.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  Well Glenn Beck was as close as you could get to Jar Jar binks ...
  - M2Ys4U 11y ago
    Jar Jar Binks is far more likeable.
andrepd 11y ago
The most recent and most serious scandal involving News Corporation was 2011 phone hacking scandal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_News_Corporation_scandals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_News_Corporation_scandals). Gives you an idea of what sort of scumbags run that mega-conglomerate.
- bduerst 11y ago
  That's the most recent? Just in July there were supposedly part of a giant plan with the MPAA to slander Google to manipulate stock prices. It's amazing anyone takes NewsCorp seriously. http://www.techtimes.com/articles/72607/20150731/mpaa-secret-plan-to-attack-google-via-media-revealed-in-emails.htm http://www.techtimes.com/articles/72607/20150731/mpaa-secret...

ucaetano 11y ago

"Pearson had a 50% stake in the Economist but only 6/13 board seats." And the board isn't even that powerful, it needs consent from the Trustees for many things, such as appointing the editor and the chairman: http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/trustees.html http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/trustee...

eddieh 11y ago

My sentiments exactly. It is a breath of fresh air to see a company depart from a huge multinational like Pearson. Somehow I wasn't aware that Pearson had a stake in the Economist and I frequent "Who Owns What" http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php. Now that I know I'm not subsidizing Pearson with my subscription, I'll be even happier to renew.

jazzyk 11y ago
You will be subsidizing a few rich industrialist families instead, among them the Rothschilds, who increased their stake from 21% to 26%. Thought you might want want to know :-)

udev 11y ago

> Phew, I was really worried they were selling to News Corp or something when I saw the headline. I am more wary of one of those greasy-activist-investor types coming into the picture and demanding the publication "does more for the investors", i.e. more Kardashian-style (garbage) news.

floatrock 11y ago
You can read all about how good activist investors are in the Economist's cover story a few months back: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21642169-why-activist-investors-are-good-public-company-capitalisms-unlikely-heroes http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21642169-why-activist-... ;)