5 ms·

Are you equally concerned with other billionaires owning major news orgs (Bezos, Slim, etc.)?

emodendroket 9y ago
Surely "owning a major news organization" and "shutting down a major news organization because you don't like what they published about you" are not exactly the same.
- olfactory 9y ago
  OK then I'll rephrase it to using one's massive wealth to significantly control the fate of a news organization
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    I can't speak for anyone else but I am certainly troubled by media consolidation in the US.
- breitling 9y ago
  Correct, but there's a difference between publishing what is in the public domain and publishing deeply private information, which they would have got through questionable sources.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    > publishing what is in the public domain and publishing deeply private information, which they would have got through questionable sources You mean "reporting"?
untog 9y ago
If those billionaires play an active role in shutting down unfavourable coverage of themselves, yes. To my knowledge that hasn't been uncovered yet, though. Don't get me wrong, in an ideal world all reporting would be independent, but I'm not sure how that model would be achieved.
- olfactory 9y ago
  I agree with the ideal you describe, but I think it is naive to assume that billionaires buy news orgs simply because they enjoy picking up a good newspaper in the morning.
slg 9y ago
I don't see how buying a media outlet to shut it down is different to buying it to influence the coverage. Both are shady but perfectly legal. I also don't see why how a single billionaire funding a lawsuit is that different than thousands of us funding a lawsuit by the EFF. If money = speech than those are both protected by the 1st amendment.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  > I also don't see why how a single billionaire funding a lawsuit is that different than thousands of us funding a lawsuit by the EFF. If money = speech than those are both protected by the 1st amendment. There is a difference. It's a microcosm of the difference between a god-king and an elected president.
  - slg 9y ago
    That analogy doesn't fit because the money doesn't give someone direct power but instead allows them to tip the scales in their favor. It is the same as Citizens United. The money allows influencing other people's votes but the money isn't directly choosing the president. I am also not speaking about a moral difference, I am speaking about a legal difference. How can you allow someone to spend $X on something with the logic that money equals speech but not allow someone to spend $X multiplied by a million on the same thing?
    - throwawayjava 9y ago
      Sure. Citizens United is also terrible.
      - slg 9y ago
        I agree, but that is a clear result of the 1st Amendment. And you get lots of people angry if you start to question whether the 1st Amendment is a great idea.
        9y ago

Surely "owning a major news organization" and "shutting down a major news organization because you don't like what they published about you" are not exactly the same.

olfactory 9y ago
OK then I'll rephrase it to using one's massive wealth to significantly control the fate of a news organization
- emodendroket 9y ago
  I can't speak for anyone else but I am certainly troubled by media consolidation in the US.
breitling 9y ago
Correct, but there's a difference between publishing what is in the public domain and publishing deeply private information, which they would have got through questionable sources.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  > publishing what is in the public domain and publishing deeply private information, which they would have got through questionable sources You mean "reporting"?

untog 9y ago

If those billionaires play an active role in shutting down unfavourable coverage of themselves, yes. To my knowledge that hasn't been uncovered yet, though. Don't get me wrong, in an ideal world all reporting would be independent, but I'm not sure how that model would be achieved.

olfactory 9y ago
I agree with the ideal you describe, but I think it is naive to assume that billionaires buy news orgs simply because they enjoy picking up a good newspaper in the morning.

slg 9y ago

I don't see how buying a media outlet to shut it down is different to buying it to influence the coverage. Both are shady but perfectly legal. I also don't see why how a single billionaire funding a lawsuit is that different than thousands of us funding a lawsuit by the EFF. If money = speech than those are both protected by the 1st amendment.

throwawayjava 9y ago
> I also don't see why how a single billionaire funding a lawsuit is that different than thousands of us funding a lawsuit by the EFF. If money = speech than those are both protected by the 1st amendment. There is a difference. It's a microcosm of the difference between a god-king and an elected president.
- slg 9y ago
  That analogy doesn't fit because the money doesn't give someone direct power but instead allows them to tip the scales in their favor. It is the same as Citizens United. The money allows influencing other people's votes but the money isn't directly choosing the president. I am also not speaking about a moral difference, I am speaking about a legal difference. How can you allow someone to spend $X on something with the logic that money equals speech but not allow someone to spend $X multiplied by a million on the same thing?
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    Sure. Citizens United is also terrible.
    - slg 9y ago
      I agree, but that is a clear result of the 1st Amendment. And you get lots of people angry if you start to question whether the 1st Amendment is a great idea.
      - 9y ago