3 ms·
Somehow to add to what guerilla is writing.. Example: I have lots of money. Media is a profitable business. I buy some media companies because 'more profit'.
by HenryBemis 6y ago
Somehow to add to what guerilla is writing..
Example: I have lots of money. Media is a profitable business. I buy some media companies because 'more profit'.
I accept and welcome the above. BUT.. I have lots of money, I made it selling heroin, and now the media are on to me, so I will 'buy a couple of media companies to counter the noise', is completely different game.
I am thinking of Italy's Berlusconi. He had sex parties, some had minor(s) [0][1], but it's all good. He owned media companies, ad companies, he was the prime minister, he was untouchable. He used all this power and control to have sex with minors? He wasn't Epstein-grade, but he wasn't a clean guy either.
So.. media consolidation helps or not the 'evils'?
[0]: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=195272163 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=195272...
[1]: https://www.smh.com.au/world/second-minor-at-berlusconi-parties-report-20110128-1a75b.html https://www.smh.com.au/world/second-minor-at-berlusconi-part...
- kypro 6y agoI agree with this and I think you seem to be acknowledging that the word "billionaire" in this article is irrelevant? My issue is that it's being used here as if the reader should care that rich people own media companies. Perhaps the article should be titled, "These 15 [bad people] Own America's News Media Companies", because as you point out, it's okay for rich people to own successful media companies, but that sometimes people with bad motives who are rich enough to own a media company do so. I was being critical of the framing of the article – I understand why people are critical of the individuals and the motivations of those who own media companies.