9 ms·
Time Inc. Sells Itself to Meredith Corp., Backed by Koch Brothers
- wnevets 9y agoI guess a certain someone gets to become the time person of the year after all.
- joshmn 9y agoSurprisingly, they're not his biggest fan. At all.
- DonHopkins 9y agoOnce he nukes NK, they'll fall in line along with everyone else. ...Or at least, that's the plan.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- senthil_rajasek 9y agoNope. They are not friends.
- jonny_eh 9y agoThey're on good terms now https://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/donald-trump-david-bill-koch-brothers-237059 https://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/donald-trump-david-bi...
- jhall1468 9y agoNo, the Koch's are political activists. They put up with him because they have to. Rest assured if the opportunity presented itself to throw him under a bus, they would hesitate. At the end of the day, they know they are likely looking at 4 years at most.
- wyldfire 9y agoTime's "Person of the Year" is not necessarily an honor. It's often awarded to disreputable/notorious people because of their controversy (Hitler, Stalin, Khomeini). Officially it's someone/something "[that] for better or for worse... has done the most to influence the events of the year".
- somberi 9y agoI found this podcast, an interview with Charles Koch, interesting. There are two parts to it. Whatever the ideological issues may be, I found he spoke in an engaging way. http://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-hate-koch-brothers-part-1/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-hate-koch-brothers-part-... http://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-hate-koch-brothers-part-2/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-hate-koch-brothers-part-...
- aliasnexus0 9y agoBoth very interesting episodes. Also, I can't recommend the Freakonomics podcast enough.
- pcunite 9y agoCharles seems like a nice guy. Curious, what is the political problem with him? https://youtu.be/Z7Pj2rKdKII https://youtu.be/Z7Pj2rKdKII A quote from the video: If you don't learn to do dirty jobs, if you don't learn unpleasant work, by the time you're in your 30s, you never learn to work productively ... you learn from that you don't want to do that the rest of your life, so you had better find some aptitude. He says that after telling about a time his father made him dig out weeds.
- danso 9y agoI don't hate him, in fact, I've read a lot about and been impressed with some of his goals, particularly criminal reform [0]. However, I've never been overly political, and I'm currently not in the population most affected by the influence of his campaign spending. Someone who is greatly affected by something like, say, reproductive rights, would probably feel differently about how Charles Koch's money -- whatever its commendable intentions -- helps to elect politicians who aim to rollback reproductive rights. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/do-the-koch-brothers-really-care-about-criminal-justice-reform/386615/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/do-the-...
- jackmott 9y agoMy main problem with the Kochs is they have spent millions (billions?) of dollars lying to people about science. That is inexcusable. They have also somehow single handedly interfered with the appointment of supreme court justices. America should work to ensure no single unelected person has so much power.
- mc32 9y agoNow we have two (more) major newsoutlets owned by activist owners --WaPo and Time Mag. Wish there were more independence in the media. Or at least fewer owners who will push agendas. Time will tell.
- knowaveragejoe 9y agoHas WaPo's "activist" owner had any real impact on what they choose to cover?
- danso 9y agoWe don't truly know because we don't/can't/won't know all the stories that WaPo killed because of influence. However, worrying about stories being "killed" is the wrong way to think of the potentially nefarious effects. The much more common problem, and much harder to detect, are knowing the stories that the WaPo (or any news org) just didn't put priority into pursuing because of institutional inertia and unspoken rules. If WaPo had a reporter/editor who specialized in particular zealous investigations into Amazon, we would likely hear murmurs and off-the-record complaints about how WaPo has been going unexpectedly soft on Amazon post-acquisition. In contrast, there is no possibility of knowing how the average Wapo tech reporter would have covered Amazon in an alternate universe in 2017.
- forapurpose 9y agoI'm not sure what the parent's conclusion is, but AFAICT they are saying that there is no evidence of activism/bias. (I assume we are excluding opinion pages, which are supposed to be biased.) I don't agree with the general point that bias is necessarily difficult to detect. For example, with Murdoch there is a large amount of explicit evidence.
- dragontamer 9y agoEhh? If WashPo kills a story, the other news outlets would most likely be running those stories. Lets say WashPo kills a story, why wouldn't Fox News run that story in the headlines? Or New York times? Or Politico, or... any media organization worth a darn?
- sandworm101 9y agoFyi, there are actually three Kock brothers. They keep a spare on ice in case on of twins needs to go in for servicing. In all seriousness, this family goes beyond the two of them. (The third brother is real, and he is kept out of the spotlight). The twins are the public face of a much more secretive private empire.
- acjohnson55 9y agoYou do know there are four brothers, right? Three are businessmen, two are conservative activists.
- jdpedrie 9y agoThey’re not twins.
- danso 9y agoI grew up in a home that subscribed to Time Magazine, and am young to remember how often that brand was touted in advertisements on TV. But it's been a long time since I've associated prestige with that media brand, especially after it was spun off from the actually profitable parts of Time Warner. With the exception of their "Person of the Year" tradition, which draws attention but seems to have as little actual influence as PEOPLE's sexiest man award. Quick, try to name 2 people who are not Trump/Clinton who were on TIME's shortlist last year: http://time.com/4589502/person-of-the-year-2016-shortlist/ http://time.com/4589502/person-of-the-year-2016-shortlist/ Maybe it's a bit of confirmation bias as I don't go out of my way to read Time magazine anymore. But compare their nationally known work to that of Conde Nast, another prestigious brand and also having major revenue problems as a media company. Despite that, The New Yorker doesn't seem to have lessened at all in the rate of influential and newsworthy pieces it produces (Rowan Farrow's expose of Harvey Weinstein being one of the more recent notables [0]). If the Koch Brothers intend to use it part of their PR wing, they have a lot to do to boost the brand so that people even pay attention. Possibly relevant historical example: In 2010, another well-known national magazine, Newsweek, was bought from the Washington Post for $1 by a mostly unknown billionaire [0], Sidney Harman, of Harman Kardon fame. Harman died in 2011, so whatever plans he had for Newsweek for his own purposes went unrealized. It was then sold to IBT Media, a mostly unknown company owned by a somewhat controversial charismatic Christian sect [2]. Was Newsweek used to advance its founders causes? Hard to say, like TIME, I can't remember the last time a Newsweek exclusive had national influence the way the New Yorker regularly does, though some people here may faintly recall their epic fuckup about Bitcoin's founder [3]. And having an independent, private source of wealth hasn't helped Newsweek be any more stable than it was when it got sold for $1 [4]. [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/business/media/newsweek-bought-by-digital-news-company-ibt.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/business/media/newsweek-bo... [1] https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/harvey-weinsteins-army-of-spies https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/harvey-weinsteins-a... [2] http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/03/newsweek-ibt-olivet-david-jang/ http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/03/newsweek-ibt-olivet... [3] http://www.newsweek.com/2014/03/14/face-behind-bitcoin-247957.html http://www.newsweek.com/2014/03/14/face-behind-bitcoin-24795... [4] http://www.foliomag.com/newsweek-lays-off-impoco-others-people-move-02-14-17/ http://www.foliomag.com/newsweek-lays-off-impoco-others-peop...
- forapurpose 9y agoI wonder why Bill Gates, in contrast to the Koch brothers, stays out of social and political issues. He seems to care deeply and many of his goals, such as advancing health and education, depend on politics much more than on his money. For example, the Kochs work hard to reframe discussion of government revenue / taxes, regulation, and government overall in order to reduce all of them (whatever you think of their goals, that is the case). If Gates invested politically in his goals, there might be much more government support for health and education, via funding, research, availability to citizens, and policy innovation. Despite Gate's vast wealth, the U.S. government spends orders of magnitude more than him; a million dollars influencing politics could leverage far more resources than a million spent directly on research. Of course, everyone would be better off if the fate of the U.S. depended on democracy - one person, one vote - and not on the manipulations and influence of three people.
- clintonb 9y agoI would not be surprised if Gates provided financial support to various causes and campaigns. That said, I can understand why he is not as prominently involved in politics. Politics is full of people making seemingly irrational decisions, and there is no guarantee that money spent on campaigns will actually result in meaningful change. The Gates Foundation can fund programs with achievable and measurable outcomes without having to worry about voters, lobbyists, and all the other craziness. That level of control speaks to me as an engineer. I imagine it appeals to Bill Gates, to some extent, as well.
- tomcam 9y agoHe is a frequent political to Democratic candidates. Just visit http://classic.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/advindsea.shtml http://classic.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/advindsea.shtml and fill in Gates, William, with Microsoft as the employer. Most of it's the Microsoft PAC but he also favors such luminaries as Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who torpedoed Bernie's candidacy.
- pcunite 9y agoThis is a fascinating thought process on hiring. We can hire all the brightest MBAs in the world, and if they don't have the right values, we will fail. We hire based on values first - then talent. https://youtu.be/Z7Pj2rKdKII?t=25m12s https://youtu.be/Z7Pj2rKdKII?t=25m12s Other quotes: What are my capabilities that will create superior values for others? What are the best opportunities to do that?
- forapurpose 9y agoMany companies say things like that, have mission statements, etc. It all depends on what is meant by "values" and, much more importantly, how it's implemented on the ground. Sometimes, "values" means that you agree with the boss or at least don't challenge them in a fundamental way. Sometimes it just means that they want someone to 'fit' in the culture, and often, regardless of what's stated, the only values that will get you hired/fired are profits and office politics. The Kochs are a special case, though, with their very strong political beliefs; I wonder if "values" refers to that.
- jackmott 9y agokeep in mind the guy who said that has spent millions of dollars to lie to the public about climate change.
- Hasz 9y agoAllegedly, the Koch Brothers don't plan to take an active role in the company. "Steve Lombardo, a spokesman for Koch Industries, also said that the Kochs had no plans to take an active role in the expanded company. “This is a passive financial investment made through our equity development arm,” Mr. Lombardo said. The company’s role in the transaction, he said, was similar to that of a bank." Regardless of what you think of the Koch brothers, this appears to be a mundane deal sensationalized by the specter of the Koch brothers.
- tryingagainbro 9y ago>>Regardless of what you think of the Koch brothers, this appears to be a mundane deal sensationalized by the specter of the Koch brothers. Of course, until 5 years from now, they simply frown their faces about an article and editors get the message. Maybe it is like you said, maybe it will end like this: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/dec/12/newscorporation.rupertmurdoch https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/dec/12/newscorporatio... "I picked up the phone and called Murdoch and said that I was speaking not as a shareholder, but as a viewer of Fox. I said that these are not Muslim riots, they are riots," Campaign Middle East magazine quoted the prince as saying. "He investigated the matter and called Fox and within half an hour it was changed from 'Muslim riots' to 'civil riots'." Money does strange things.
- opportune 9y agoThey don't necessarily need to take an active role to exert influence, read this book (or the wikipedia for a brief intro) for details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
- omarforgotpwd 9y agoThe key word being allegedly. I seriously doubt they have no agenda for Time.
- wnevets 9y agoYes lets take the word of self proclaim political activist when it comes to buying media companies
- leifaffles 9y agoLooking forward to Rachel Maddow's monologue tomorrow night on "dark money in politics".
- gnarbarian 9y ago"brought to you by Open Society Foundations"
- shard972 9y agoI think this recent point made by Nigel Farage in the EU parliament sums it all up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZLr0TtPjUc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZLr0TtPjUc
- te_chris 9y agoYes, an unscrupulous man spouting almost anti-semitic conspiracy theories at a job he is, at best, part-time at sums up a lot about the man doing the spouting.
- mcintyre1994 9y ago...Nigel Farage, involved in the Brexit rererendum on the leave side, speaking out against dark money in politics? I'm sure he's utterly sincere.
- subroutine 9y agoMaybe Trump will be Time's person of the year after all.
- latch 9y agoWhy would you say that?
- idle_processor 9y agoThe implication is that the Koch brothers gain power or favors by undermining Time's selection process, making Trump PotY. Whether it's because Trump wants to be PotY or because it boosts the right wing are open to interpretation. I am not endorsing the OP's statement, just trying to clarify.
- evan_ 9y agoI think you mean Man (person) of the year
- krrrh 9y agoThe Koch brothers are not Trump supporters.
- rev_null 9y agoAnyone know why the headline was changed on HN to remove the Koch Brothers?
- moomin 9y agoTo make the story sound like the kind of merger that doesn’t hit the top of HN?
- beedogs 9y agoHappens constantly here now, with no explanation. Rank-and-file contributors are scolded about editorialising headlines, yet the moderators do it all the time when it suits their fancy. Along with the shadow bans that get handed out on a whim, it's one of the major reasons I've stopped visiting.
- beedogs 9y agoHey, thanks for the downvotes, guys, but I would've appreciated actual discussion. (Another reason I've left.)
- dredmorbius 9y agoAlmost certainly: an attempt to de-fang a discussion that would almost certainly be highly political, and in the hope that discussion of that element might at least tend to be amongst those who'd read the article rather than responded to the headline. Information delivery rates matter.
- sctb 9y agoA moderator changed it to “Time Inc. Sells Itself to Meredith Corp, owner of Family Circle and AllRecipes” for that reason (after there were plenty of such tangential comments as evidence), but we've changed it back.
- KeepTalking 9y agoShort on content, long on medication ads is how I view Time. Time has suffered from the lack of a differentiated digital content strategy that is compelling. I default to WaPo, NYT, Economist, FinTimes, Atlantic and the BBC.
- puranjay 9y agoNYT, Economist and Atlantic are all good. But good God, WaPo has let itself go with HuffPo-tier headlines and hysteria.
- nindalf 9y agoNYT, Economist and Atlantic are the ones I'm subscribed to as well. I've tried other publications but they turn me off for one reason or another.
- ryanwaggoner 9y agoCompletely disagree. WaPo is doing incredible journalism and scanning their front page at any given time reveals normal headlines, definitely not what HuffPo does, and definitely not “hysteria”.
- dominotw 9y ago> definitely not what HuffPo does I went to their homepages, both of them had some article on "harry and markle", watchdog suing trump, sexual assault article. Whats the difference? PS: just scanning the homepage put me in bad mood, why would ppl voluntarily do this to themselves.
- azernik 9y ago"Harry and Markle": A British prince marrying am American is celebrity gossip, but of the kind that makes the front page of quite venerable Western news outlets. The CFPB official suing Trump is a serious ongoing crisis which is not about personal injury, but rather a dispute about who is legitimate head of a federal agency. It is the literal top story of the Wall Street Journal. And whatever you might think about the the crisis about changing mores on sexual harassment and assault, it is right now hitting Congress and changing committee chairs, endangering reelections, and may lead to resignations.
- indubitable 9y agoAn absolutely phenomenal article that's directly related to many of the issues being discussed in this thread is, "The Bad News About the News" [1] by Robert Kaiser. Kaiser worked at the Washington Post for more than 50 years as a journalist and editor. He decided to retire shortly after Jeff Bezos purchased it. It's an interesting article discussing the transition between the days of the media having a stranglehold on information dissemination and the transition to modern times where the internet has mostly supplanted their role there. And the massive implications and changes that took place internally, and now externally, during this process. [1] - https://www.brookings.edu/research/essays/2014/bad-news https://www.brookings.edu/research/essays/2014/bad-news
- llamataboot 9y agoThe /actual/ headline, which is supposed to be general HN rules. Time Inc. Sells Itself to Meredith Corp., Backed by Koch Brothers WTF cares about Family Circle? Clearly this story is only newsworthy because of the potential propaganda angle.
- Chinjut 9y agoThe appropriate headline here would be "Time Inc. Sells Itself to Meredith Corp., Backed by Koch Brothers". That is the actual headline of this article, and as far as I can tell, there is no inaccuracy in it nor any good reason to have changed it for Hacker News.
- tanepiper 9y agoMuch like the "world" winners of things like the Superbowl and WWE Wrestling - Time I think is very much seen as an American brand and not much notice is take of things like "Man of the Year" outside of it. It's a shame it's being bought by this lot though - of course they can make their man of the year whoever the like now, including Trump and other controversial people.
- dictum 9y ago> of course they can make their man of the year whoever the like now, including Trump and other controversial people Can't beat their historical picks, Hitler and Stalin (twice), both of which met the original goal of the award: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15785040 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15785040
- astura 9y ago??? Trump has already been Person of the Year, 2016. There have already been controversial figures named Person of the Year in the past, such as Vladimir Putin, politicians (including American presidents, Newt Gingrich), popes, and protesters. I think Kissinger was Person of the Year too. It's meant to be someone who has had the most influence, not necessarily someone whose been "the best." Also you got the World Series confused with the Super Bowl.
- scandox 9y agoLast time I read Time magazine I was shocked at the almost childlike simplicity of the content. It reminded me of a magazine we have here for elderly people of minimal education called Ireland’s Own...it does interviews with sweater wearing singers from country towns and articles on the potential historical reality of Fairies...now that I think about it it is a cut above Time.
- throwawayjava 9y agoI had the same reaction when reading Time recently. Has anyone gone back through the archives to determine if this has always been the case?
- aedron 9y agoI read Time around the turn of the millenium (got it as part of some promotion for college students). It definitely had that geriatric feel. '60 Minutes' on print is pretty much how I felt about it.
- silviogutierrez 9y agoI'm reminded of this piece from the Onion: https://entertainment.theonion.com/time-announces-new-version-of-magazine-aimed-at-adults-1819594952 https://entertainment.theonion.com/time-announces-new-versio... Sadly, it's video-only. Couldn't find an article.