Hacker News Reader

Comment by Hasz | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com