4 ms·

I remember reading that in Perú in the 90s, Vladimiro Montesinos, the president/dictator's right-hand man, would bribe a lot of power brokers to take the admini

I remember reading that in Perú in the 90s, Vladimiro Montesinos, the president/dictator's right-hand man, would bribe a lot of power brokers to take the administration's side on various matters. So far so boring: the interesting part is he video-taped the bribery, so we have a pretty accurate idea of how much he paid whom. Judges, IIRC, would get about $10,000, while owners of news channels (technically channel owners who agreed to have their press coverage take sides with the government) would get $5,000,000. In Perú. In the 90s. If we had nothing to go on other than the volume of these bribes to say who had power and who didn't, I'd say...turns out, the media is pretty powerful. A news anchor is probably more powerful than 100 judges. And so, in some way or another, the American Government has to figure out a way to keep news outlets as happy as they demand to be, or suffer the dire consequences. While corruption in America exists, it isn't like the government could simply give them billions of dollars (could be wrong here), so they try to please them by enriching the conglomerates that own the channels in other ways. Primarily, nowadays, that means perpetuating copyright monopolies, under more draconian laws, in overseas countries that can be made or enticed to play ball.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> If we had nothing to go on other than the volume of these bribes to say who had power and who didn't, I'd say...turns out, the media is pretty powerful. That probably isn't the right takeaway from these numbers. The owner of a news network almost certainly makes a lot more money than a judge. The declining marginal utility of a dollar at high income levels implies that it will take a lot more to bribe a rich business owner than a middle class government employee, regardless of the actual value of services rendered. You're also ignoring the issue of scale. The court system has thousands of judges but there are only a handful of major news networks. It looks to end up costing about the same amount to bribe all the news networks vs. all the judges. Moreover, you're assuming that the entertainment business can dictate what the news business reports strongly enough to make the politicians care. But if that's the case then why aren't all the major news networks owned by oil companies and banks? The reason copyright keeps getting extended is that there has been no organized well-financed opposition to it. Nobody with money is lobbying against it. It's not like it even benefits the industry very much! How much money is Disney really making on 100 year old movies? But the cost of extending copyright is paid by the general public who aren't organized enough to get their way, much as it is with all the other big industries that get their way at the expense of the population at large.
- sk5t 12y ago
  I'd imagine Disney makes plenty on merchandise related to their hoary old characters, particularly Pooh Bear, and not so much the movies/animation/wizened content like Fantasia or Steamboat Willie.
- patzerhacker 12y ago
  >Moreover, you're assuming that the entertainment business can dictate what the news business reports strongly enough to make the politicians care. In the United States at least the entertainment businesses can dictate what the broadcast television news business reports. ABC is owned by Disney. NBC is owned by Universal. CBS is owned by Viacom.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago

> If we had nothing to go on other than the volume of these bribes to say who had power and who didn't, I'd say...turns out, the media is pretty powerful. That probably isn't the right takeaway from these numbers. The owner of a news network almost certainly makes a lot more money than a judge. The declining marginal utility of a dollar at high income levels implies that it will take a lot more to bribe a rich business owner than a middle class government employee, regardless of the actual value of services rendered. You're also ignoring the issue of scale. The court system has thousands of judges but there are only a handful of major news networks. It looks to end up costing about the same amount to bribe all the news networks vs. all the judges. Moreover, you're assuming that the entertainment business can dictate what the news business reports strongly enough to make the politicians care. But if that's the case then why aren't all the major news networks owned by oil companies and banks? The reason copyright keeps getting extended is that there has been no organized well-financed opposition to it. Nobody with money is lobbying against it. It's not like it even benefits the industry very much! How much money is Disney really making on 100 year old movies? But the cost of extending copyright is paid by the general public who aren't organized enough to get their way, much as it is with all the other big industries that get their way at the expense of the population at large.

sk5t 12y ago
I'd imagine Disney makes plenty on merchandise related to their hoary old characters, particularly Pooh Bear, and not so much the movies/animation/wizened content like Fantasia or Steamboat Willie.
patzerhacker 12y ago
>Moreover, you're assuming that the entertainment business can dictate what the news business reports strongly enough to make the politicians care. In the United States at least the entertainment businesses can dictate what the broadcast television news business reports. ABC is owned by Disney. NBC is owned by Universal. CBS is owned by Viacom.