Time Inc. Sells Itself to Meredith Corp., Backed by Koch Brothers | Hacker News Reader

Time Inc. Sells Itself to Meredith Corp., Backed by Koch Brothers

nytimes.com

232 pointsmudil144 comments

I 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/

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-bo...

[1] https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/harvey-weinsteins-a...

[2] http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/03/newsweek-ibt-olivet...

[3] http://www.newsweek.com/2014/03/14/face-behind-bitcoin-24795...

[4] http://www.foliomag.com/newsweek-lays-off-impoco-others-peop...

The last really powerful/influential article that I can remember coming out of TIME is “Bitter Pill”, which was published in 2013: http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,2136...

Any time I've landed on the website itself, I've seen nothing but "Top 10" lists.

That really killed the brand for me. I don't associate quality journalism and storytelling with Top 10 lists. Plenty of other websites do these lists far, far better.

I haven't read Time in ages, but "Top 10" lists were their bread and butter in the 90's. The whole mission seems quaint now, but you really could feel sort of caught up with US news and pop culture by reading a slim magazine once a week.

> 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 [1]).

OT - they hinted at this in 2002: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/12/16/beauty-and-the...

It doesn't surprise me that the person who led the UK to exit the EU and the person who led a military coup in Turkey would be on the Time shortlist. Indeed, I'd have been shocked if either of them hadn't been on the list.

I'd say that both of them are likely to have a larger impact on the world than Trump, really...

I think that Time is still a brand that is thought of as being credible which could be troubling if it is turned into propaganda.

However, I think the value is the web site not the actual paper publication. A couple years ago Time ran a story I was interested in and wanted a paper copy. I went to the local grocery store and they didn't have it and then I went to the local chain bookstore and they didn't have it either. A similar thing happened when Sports Illustrated had an article I wanted a paper copy of. What the magazines sections of these stores did have were plenty of crafting and gun magazines (I live in a rural area) and tons of "special issues" about Princess Diana or the Beatles or something. The magazine rack ain't what it used to be.

I had a similar problem looking for a copy of Time this past July. (I was really just looking for something to read.)

I wonder if it's different for Time's "Person of the Year" issue? I'm not sure where I'd find Time or Sports Illustrated this week; but, in February, the Sport's Illustrated Swimsuit Issue is everywhere.

Time is unique in that the articles are written by the editors, not the writers. It has a culture that is amenable to manipulation by the owners.

My guess is that it’s a platform to inject fringe-y stuff into the national conversation with a fading mainstream brand. It probably still has pull with old people.

Last 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.

I had the same reaction when reading Time recently.

Has anyone gone back through the archives to determine if this has always been the case?

I 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.

I'm reminded of this piece from the Onion:

https://entertainment.theonion.com/time-announces-new-versio...

Sadly, it's video-only. Couldn't find an article.

An 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

Short 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.

NYT, Economist and Atlantic are all good. But good God, WaPo has let itself go with HuffPo-tier headlines and hysteria.

NYT, 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.

Completely 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”.

> 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.

"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.

I wasn't saying they are not important issues. I was just questioning GP's assertion that they have entirely different content.

The content wasn't in question, the headlines were. The assertion was HuffPo has more hysterical headlines than WaPo

>scanning their front page at any given time reveals normal headlines, definitely not what HuffPo does

how are huffpo headlines not "normal" if they have same headlines.

Responding to your comment here:

WaPo headline for CFPB story: Fight over consumer watchdog agency goes on as two acting directors try to take command

HuffPo headline: CIVIL WAR AT FINANCE WATCHDOG!

One is clearly more hysterical than the other. The story content may be roughly the same, but the headline is not. And if the headline is so clickbaity, it's probably not unlikely that the content is more dramatic/hysterical than is necessary too.

Allegedly, 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.

They 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

>>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/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.

The key word being allegedly. I seriously doubt they have no agenda for Time.

Yes lets take the word of self proclaim political activist when it comes to buying media companies

Occam's Razor.

You typed a lot of words when the truth is obvious. Billionaires don't acquire media outlets to make money (directly).

Not sure that that is really occam's razor?

"I bought the hen house as an investment in eggs", fox claims.

If conservative billionaires are alike, the way WSJ has tanked since being bought by Murdoch portends that Time will be a disaster.

(For example, it started peddling "Mueller needs to resign" nonsense after the indictments under easily falsifiable excuses.)

[See https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/30/murdoch-fox-muelle...]

What have the WSJ's subscriber numbers done since Murdoch purchased it?

Needs to be viewed also in context to the market.

WSJ has always pedalled some dubious editorials like that, even before acquisition. I’d be curious to know what other differences there are though since they were acquired.

Like most people, I'm sure no two conservative billionaires are alike.

Sadly, while Murdock's people made the WSJ less of a quality paper, it's one of the few that still makes money, and that probably wouldn't have been the case without the changes.

WSJ has always been famous for hard news and right-wing editorial page. They use the hardnews to lend credibility to their editorial.

When is the last time an investor was held to the statements they made before they acquired a company? In the UK we actually have competition laws that stop large companies being sold if it would result in significantly layoffs or lack of competition. Senior execs in the purchasing company often have to speak to parliamentary committees. They routinely directly lie to parliament and no action is taken.

What the investor says is worth nothing. They are buying a media company that would let them significantly influence in the market.

Are you suggesting that this new Time will be willing to run an investigative series on some other subsidiary of Koch brothers?

Or that in case some editor gets the bright idea to write something critical about cause near and dear Kochs that a call from that equity development arm will not change editor's mind?

People of all political stripes buy media to have influence first. Making money is a bonus.

PS It would be interesting to see how WaPo changed stance after Bezos bought it.

I 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.

I 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.

He is a frequent political to Democratic candidates. Just visit 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.

Much 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.

> 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

???

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.

I 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-... http://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-hate-koch-brothers-part-...

Both very interesting episodes.

Also, I can't recommend the Freakonomics podcast enough.

Charles seems like a nice guy. Curious, what is the political problem with him?

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.

I 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-...

The Koch brothers are pro-choice, as far as I know.

They also support gay marriage and an end to drug prohibition.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/14/politics/david-koch-gay-rights...

Does that match up with who they fund? My understanding is that they are funding lots of politicians who push xenophobia, homophobia, anti-feminism, and the drug war.

Unless I'm mistaken about that, I don't think it particularly matters what their personal beliefs are, since they are working against those supposed beliefs with their money and their actions.

If you're willing to sacrifice human rights to get tax cuts and deregulation, it shows what really matters to you, and what sort of person you really are.

Perfect politicians don't exist.

Did you vote for Barack Obama in 2008, despite his opposition to gay marriage?

That's what I mean, they may personally be great folks, not any more venal or dishonorable than any activist or benefactor. But the fact is that they also use their wealth to accomplish their goals in vast, wide-reaching ways. In an ideal world, they'd be funding politicians who supported exactly their personal beliefs. But politics is never ideal, and the Koch Brothers have apparently rationalized that the ends -- supporting the GOP's hold on power -- justify the means.

So while I personally can't articulate reasons why the Koch deserve enmity, I sure as hell don't have the right to judge people who are directly disenfranchised because of the Kochs' choice in priorities.

I don't think that quote tells us anything important, other than he can be charming. Lots of people, good and bad, are charming.

> what is the political problem with him?

Just do a quick search and you'll find plenty of material. Essentially, they have revived the goals of the John Birch Society, an extreme right-wing group in which their father played an important role.

You can't really make a political judgement about the man based on a soft video interview.

The Koch brothers support both libertarian causes and are opposed to action against climate change, to name two. They also put private investigators to dig into the background of a journalist that was writing about them:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/27/nyregion/what-happened-to...

More broadly, they are able to affect the shape of the laws being produced in this country by bankrolling various politicians. Their qualification to do so is simply that they are rich. You can find that politically questionable even if you're in favour of their politics.

You don't have to object to them personally, but you can't really say there is nothing for anyone to disagree with.

> The Koch brothers ... are opposed to action against climate change.

Even after the results from Berkeley earth that was in part funded by one of the Koch foundations?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

Yes?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-...

You don't have to be completely binary in your judgements of people like the Koch brothers. They can still be politically questionable even if they do things you agree with from time to time.

For instance, their views on criminal justice reform would probably be quite favourably received by many of the same people who oppose their views on climate change. That isn't a contradiction unless you make it one.

Sadly, I think nuance has all but been lost in today's political climate.

They massively distort our democracy by spending billions on political advocacy for their pet causes.

Exactly, them and Soros have enormous wealth to push their pet projects --that's worrying.

The conspiracy culture around the Koch brothers is cringeworthy. Yes, they are rich, very politically active, and they lean libertarian (although they often choose the conservative side over the liberal side when they come head to head). But they do not control large portions of the government and do everything for their special interests like many Democrats seem to truly believe. They have an ideology they strongly believe in, like many other people, and they do what they can to advance it in a contentious political climate where liberals currently seem to have the loudest voice.

The /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.

Anyone know why the headline was changed on HN to remove the Koch Brothers?

To make the story sound like the kind of merger that doesn’t hit the top of HN?

Happens 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.

Hey, thanks for the downvotes, guys, but I would've appreciated actual discussion. (Another reason I've left.)

Almost 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.

A 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.

The 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.

Looking forward to Rachel Maddow's monologue tomorrow night on "dark money in politics".

"brought to you by Open Society Foundations"

I think this recent point made by Nigel Farage in the EU parliament sums it all up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZLr0TtPjUc

Yes, 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.

...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.

Maybe Trump will be Time's person of the year after all.

Why would you say that?

The 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.

I think you mean Man (person) of the year

The Koch brothers are not Trump supporters.

I guess a certain someone gets to become the time person of the year after all.

Surprisingly, they're not his biggest fan. At all.

Once he nukes NK, they'll fall in line along with everyone else. ...Or at least, that's the plan.

Nope. They are not friends.

They're on good terms now

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/donald-trump-david-bi...

No, 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.

Time'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".

This 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

Other quotes:

What are my capabilities that will create superior values for others? What are the best opportunities to do that?

Many 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.

Now 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.

Has WaPo's "activist" owner had any real impact on what they choose to cover?

We 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.

I'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.

Ehh? 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?

Not all stories are widely known before they break. For instance, Wapo might not pursue an investigative piece on Amazon as enthusiastically, or another investigation may get prioritised because of the owner.

A story that isn't pursued might not see the light of day. Big stories, like the Weinstein disclosures, are broken after long periods of investigation and journalistic grunt-work. Only after they break do you see all the other news outlets pounce on the story and start reporting it. Historically, Wapo has been an important place for investigative work, they broke the Watergate story.

I think that's more the worry.

> Not all stories are widely known before they break. For instance, Wapo might not pursue an investigative piece on Amazon as enthusiastically, or another investigation may get prioritised because of the owner.

As is true of all Media.

I don't recall any major Fox News articles or pieces on the Sexual Harassment claims of Bill O'Reily. But the story got out, because we have competing media companies in the USA.

That's the benefit of free-market competition. Unfortunately, it also means that whenever one media company sounds the alarm, the readers need to be careful with the evidence.

> But the story got out, because we have competing media companies in the USA.

How long did it take for the Kevin Spacey story to get out even though there were rumours from early 2000. Some stories can remain buried for a very long time.

Free market is not the answer to everything.

Yes. They commonly report negative SpaceX stories, and trashed the hell out of Bernie Sanders during the election, publishing 16 negatives stories in less than a day.

How are those connected to the owner though?

Jeff Bezos owns SpaceX competitor Blue Origin, and was a big Hillary Clinton supporter.

It's still an assumption to connect the paper's content to Bezos though. That he has William Randolph Hearst level control in the WaPo seems like a common conspiracy theory.

It's a fundamental denial of obvious facts to claim that editorial control by the owner of a media outlet is conspiracy theory. There are plenty of well known examples, though most people only acknowledge the ones that are opposite their own political beliefs.

What are the well known examples and the obvious facts connecting Bezos with the editorial direction of the WaPo?

Saying he makes editorial decisions in the newspaper because they printed criticism of Sanders or his competition doesn't cut it for me.

You misunderstood my comment. I'm saying that there are plenty of examples of editorial control by owners, demonstrating that this is not within the realm of conspiracy theory.

A few examples:

Rupert Murdoch

Michael Bloomberg

Andrew Breitbart

Matt Drudge

No matter how direct Bezos influences the WaPo staff: The editors know that publishing bad stories about Amazon is less good for them keeping their job than writing bad about Walmart. And even in are in other areas there is an implicit assumption. Fighting this internally and externally is hard.

If you were working in WAPO, you would think twice about publishing negative stories about Amazon or Bezos.

Weird, these don't strike me as particularly flattering:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/amazon-workers-i...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/stores-hope-deals-ex...

WaPo is an operation mockingbird outlet through and through now, and has no credibility left over from its olden days.

Yikes, really saddened to hear this far-reaching conspiracy claptrap on HN.

Yikes, really sad to see people burying their head in the sand on HN.

Don't be so patronizing.

You’re counting Jeff Bezos as an activist but not Rupert Murdoch? That makes no sense. Most of his media conglomerate is openly political all the time (Fox News, New York Post, The Sun etc.) while some maintains a pretense of objectivity (Wall Street Journal).

They are all problematic, but an additional issue is that Conservative views tend to be labeled such more then Progressive views get labeled such -so the presentation is that Progressive views are more "normal" than conservative views. As in your post, you're implying that most of Murdoch's outlets are politically biased but make no implication about progressive outlets.

Only two? Murdoch, Turner ... I'm sure there are many more.

Turner's network didn't turn full on opposition till recently though and he's out of the picture anyway.

HuffPo but she's been at it for a while.

I meant to say major ownership changes to activist owners in the last two years --though there may be some other big ones.

Turner's network was one of the first that has some clear record of proposals to do what it (and most other media) has done today. You might find this hot mic moment [1] interesting.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCUIlV-AKY4

I think that's what "independence" in the media looks like. The alternative is ownership by massive conglomerates. GE owns NBC, does that make NBC more "independent" than the New York Times (which is owned by the Sulzberger family)?

Media outlets are valuable, thus your options for ownership are 1) very rich individuals or families or 2) large corporations. Which one of those did you want to see more of?

Since 2013, Comcast, not GE, owns NBC.

My bad, good catch.

I thought it was Kabletown...

Honestly it's an unpalatable dilemma, but I'd say I'd prefer a conglomerate which has fewer owner impulses over an owner who has an agenda to drive.

I like the British media, because they don't pretend to be impartial. Impartiality is impossible, so it's better to be honest about that fact than to pretend to be impartial as the American media does.

On the other hand the state sponsored one forces you to pay an involuntary fee and it is not all that balanced a source.

It's hardly involuntary. No one's holding a gun to your head to own a TV receiver.

So you buy a receiver will never watch the channel, yet you must pay whether or not you even agree with their programming and somehow that is voluntary excise? It's strongarming.

There are plenty of things my government does (like invade Iraq or charge zero dollars for mineral rights) that I am forced to pay for. Cry me a river.

Presumably, at least, you can vote your gov out, PM, MPs --can you vote away that tax?

I am not quite familiar with the UK's parliamentary system but, I would assume you can lobby your representatives to eliminate the tax. So, yes, you can vote the tax away. I would be greatly surprised if folks can vote on Brexit but not a simple tax.

It rides on a Comms act of 2003? So it would be more difficult to have overturned than voting out your MP or Party (PM).

You don't need to pay if it isn't configured. My TV is not set up to watch live broadcasts as I only use it for gaming and I've never had to pay for the TV License.

If you are going to be incensed about something get your facts straight.

What percent of your income was the TV tax? Be honest.

Does it matter? It's still money taken by force.

That's how all taxes work??

Yes, and that's what taxes are: money taken by force.

This position is not indefensible but it is hard to defend: it implies that you could not possibly construct a state of comparable complexity to modern governance if the topmost layer were a libertarian paradise. But that position is very implausible. If you can construct a model of a state then you can easily analogize to whatever that is, instead of theft.

I'll pay a fee all day to have some fraction of the population getting less of their news from the Daily Mail etc.

Let's triple the fee and get some state newspapers and advertising.

What if the BBC's politics (ie where it advertises all its jobs) were aligned with the Mail rather than the Graun? Would you still be so keen, or would you be among those calling for it to be abolished?

Abolished but it's never going to get close to being that gross.

They'll have plenty of spin and perspective that I disagree with but the rest of our media is absolutely festering. Anything that isn't owned by an 80 year old billionaire is welcome to me. They simply can't be any worse.

The rest of this thread is a sad excuse of analysis of the problems with the Koch family, but I just want to say it's not worth pretending the BBC isn't just as bad as the equivalent here, which would be NPR, (so don't go trying to compare it to fox or MSNBC) and I've heard plenty of criticism of British media doing exactly what you say they don't, from one of my favorite and one of the best journalists, Robert Fisk.

What about the BBC is openly impartial?

Has there ever been such a thing? Were the newspaper barons of the past neutral?

There's no true neutrality. You always have a bias. The statements "the coin was tossed and shows head" and "tail didn't come up" are both true and correct equally valid description of the same fact. For more complex issues the description is even harder. Especially if you add selection of areas to cover, due to limited space, time and authors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com