I'm aware of the history, and I'm sure the writer of that Economist article is as well. The quote isn't misleading: AOL was spun out of the conglomerate, not Ti

I'm aware of the history, and I'm sure the writer of that Economist article is as well. The quote isn't misleading: AOL was spun out of the conglomerate, not Time Warner. It's not really necessary for an article only tangentially about either of these companies to go into their history to mention that, in the past, one was worth a lot more. It's just not very important for the story. If the story had been about Time Warner and AOL, then that would be relevant background, but the story wasn't about that.