Who owns the media?

longknife

Diamond Member
Sep 21, 2012
42,221
13,088
2,250
Sin City
5ccc8295dda4c84d528b4684.jpg


We continually hear complaints of fake news and biased reporting. We see the faces on TV spouting their lines, most often created by their producers and not them. And nobody really knows who those producers or directors are – the real people behind the news. At least there are some of those faces who makes no pretense as to who they are and what their agendas are.


So, back to the question. According to Wiki:


Globally, large media conglomerates include Bertelsmann, National Amusements (Viacom Inc. and CBS Corporation), Sony Corporation, News Corp, Comcast, The Walt Disney Company, AT&T Inc., Fox Corporation, Hearst Communications, MGM Holdings Inc., Grupo Globo (South America) and Lagardère Group.[4][5][6]

As of 2018, the largest media conglomerates in terms of revenue rank Comcast, The Walt Disney Company, AT&T, CBS Corporation and Viacom per Forbes.

At least we know who owns them.


My rambling comes from this article
@ Follow the money: Rick Sanchez, John Huddy & Chris Hedges explain media decay
 
Anyone who doubts the Jews own and control the media, just has to look at their last names.

Same thing with the large banks and financial institutions. .... :cool:

excellent point------lately jews have last names
 
Anyone who doubts the Jews own and control the media, just has to look at their last names.

Same thing with the large banks and financial institutions. .... :cool:

excellent point------lately jews have last names

imprisoned criminals cannot be identified as to race or
religion in public stats------just look at the last and first
names
 
5ccc8295dda4c84d528b4684.jpg


We continually hear complaints of fake news and biased reporting. We see the faces on TV spouting their lines, most often created by their producers and not them. And nobody really knows who those producers or directors are – the real people behind the news. At least there are some of those faces who makes no pretense as to who they are and what their agendas are.


So, back to the question. According to Wiki:


Globally, large media conglomerates include Bertelsmann, National Amusements (Viacom Inc. and CBS Corporation), Sony Corporation, News Corp, Comcast, The Walt Disney Company, AT&T Inc., Fox Corporation, Hearst Communications, MGM Holdings Inc., Grupo Globo (South America) and Lagardère Group.[4][5][6]

As of 2018, the largest media conglomerates in terms of revenue rank Comcast, The Walt Disney Company, AT&T, CBS Corporation and Viacom per Forbes.

At least we know who owns them.


My rambling comes from this article
@ Follow the money: Rick Sanchez, John Huddy & Chris Hedges explain media decay
The belief, that owners of media outlets control the news for political purpose has some validity but media just like any business is all about pleasing the customer because that how they make money. So if viewers want to see dirt on Trump, there will be a network that will give it to them and if they want to see Trump defended, there will be a network that will give it to them. In the end, it's about ratings and ratings mean money.

About 60 years ago, a decision was made at NBC to the treat the news division the same as entertainment; that is the news division had to support itself. Prior to this, the new division was considered a public service. Ratings had to be high enough to generate enough advertising to make the programs pay. Soon all the other networks adopted similar policies. When this happened, news reporting policy was replaced with a policy of giving viewers what viewers wanted regardless of news value or whatever slant had to put on it to please the viewer. That was the end of objective reporting. News had to be entertaining. If there was no news, the media created news.
 
Last edited:
About 60 years ago, a decision was made at NBC to the treat the news division the same as entertainment; that is the news division had to support itself. Prior to this, the new division was considered a public service. Ratings had to be high enough to generate enough advertising to make the programs pay. Soon all the other networks adopted similar policies.

Oh no that's not true. Yes the news was always considered a public service sector to fluff up their stations' broadcast license renewals, but those Huntley-Brinkley (et al) news shows were subsidized by the Gilligan's Islands and Perry Masons that followed them. They were loss leaders, put there for license security. The prime time sitcoms and dramas, where the networks made all their money, is what paid for them.

It wasn't until CNN went 24h that news was expected to pay for itself, and then Fox revamped that idea by cutting costs, having talking heads talking about the news rather than reporting it (commentary vs journalism). People rather than policy; basically a gossip magazine using politicians instead of celebrities, a natural outgrowth of Rupert Murdoch's having made his fortune on sleazy tabloid newspapers. Sadly the other cable "news" channels jumped down the same hole.
 
About 60 years ago, a decision was made at NBC to the treat the news division the same as entertainment; that is the news division had to support itself. Prior to this, the new division was considered a public service. Ratings had to be high enough to generate enough advertising to make the programs pay. Soon all the other networks adopted similar policies.

Oh no that's not true. Yes the news was always considered a public service sector to fluff up their stations' broadcast license renewals, but those Huntley-Brinkley (et al) news shows were subsidized by the Gilligan's Islands and Perry Masons that followed them. They were loss leaders, put there for license security. The prime time sitcoms and dramas, where the networks made all their money, is what paid for them.

It wasn't until CNN went 24h that news was expected to pay for itself, and then Fox revamped that idea by cutting costs, having talking heads talking about the news rather than reporting it (commentary vs journalism). People rather than policy; basically a gossip magazine using politicians instead of celebrities, a natural outgrowth of Rupert Murdoch's having made his fortune on sleazy tabloid newspapers. Sadly the other cable "news" channels jumped down the same hole.
I guess you're right the profit potential of the news came later. David Sarnoff president of NBC in the mid 50's recognized the importance of TV news in attracting viewers in the early evening. People did not channel surf in those days, probably due to the lack of remotes. If you hook viewers in the early evening, you had a good chance of keep them through prime time.

In the early 60's, TV networks expanded the news division out of fear of regulations. However by the 70's, the barrier between news and entertainment had increasingly eroded. Local stations were first to discover how profitable the news could be. By the end of the '70s, news was frequently producing 60 percent of a station's profits.

CNN in 1980's tapped into the news market. In mid the 90's Fox News was formed.

"When you mix fiction and news, you diminish the distinction between truth and fiction, and you wear down the audience's own discriminating power to judge."
–Bill Moyers

https://www.medialit.org/reading-room/whatever-happened-news
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top