Posted on 05/30/2010 6:02:57 AM PDT by abb
Yes, this news has been out for a year or more.
Some proof that the Obama admin is keeping anyone from buying a magazine, or anything would help.
Dem presidents are not the only ones have that feuded with the media.
Acting paranoid without any reason makes us look like kooks.
My feelings exactly. IMO, the deal killer is this quote: Post Co. indicated in the summary sent to potential buyers that the company would assume all long-term employee-related liabilities, including pension and retirement obligations, as of the sale date.
No, fire everybody with the option to rehire those you want (probably no reporters) then fill the ranks with your own people. That's why you buy the outfit in the first place.
They aren’t done yet. The key to the Left is being able to infiltrate and turn institutions which have a positive reputation. Hence, they can be fully left-wing while pretending to be unbiased.
It takes a special something to be that dishonest.
That explains why it hasn’t been sold. Nobody’s going to take on Newsweek as a vanity.
Besides, the Post can take on these obligations, just hire them for the newspaper.
“Why would Chris Ruddy buy Dinosaur Media? Does he want to lose money?”
He probably sees the opportunity to make some money. Conservative media *can* make some money. Even if it’s printed on dead trees.
The basic economic problem with the left stream media is that the market is completely saturated. How many leftist rags do you need to support the minority of the population that holds that point of view?
Who knows? If they stop being anti-American and become pro-freedom, maybe people will start buying Newsweek.If Chris Ruddy buys it, will it still be “dinosaur media”?
Journalism is negative, superficial, and unrepresentative - inherently.
That is its business model, and that is why journalism cannot be conservative.Journalism sets itself up as a cardboard hero, fit to slay cardboard dragons in the form of unoffending businessmen who wouldn't hurt a fly. Socialists are called "liberals" in America because journalists wanted to apply positive labels to the politicians who cooperated most in the journalist's endeavor of making Middle America into a "villain." America was (actually) liberal then, so the positive label "liberal" was applied to the socialists like FDR who were anything but actual liberals.
He could morph NewsMax into Newsweek (or vice versa) fairly easily I would think...
You are right and this sentence shows why it is not worth buying.
Agree with you. I have a similar view as you, but when I say that it becomes pro-freedom, I mean that it needs to morph into something resembling a conservative publication.
It makes no sense for anyone to buy as a stand alone entity. Someone would have to pair it with other assets to make it worth keeping around. If WaPo couldn’t do it, it probably doesn’t have any synergistic value.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.