They are out to help big corporations.
Paging Captain Obvious!
Just a bit ago I was treated to Chris Wallace and Howie Kurtz assure me they were not the enemies of the American People. The lack of introspection is stunning.
The free press has morphed into the George Soros Propaganda Network
They are all Democrats and the Dems also control the Deep State. So the government and the media are both under the common control of the Democratic Party.
And that applies to the politicians of both parties. - TOM
They like to call themselves (or do they?) globalists but deep down they’re just “Lennon-istas”.
Its part of the reason I have always felt Warren Buffets “country cousin” image is just a big fraud.
Buffet bought, and still owns a host of media outlets like Media General, Liberty Media and Lee Enterprises which contradict his own stated investment style. All are in declining businesses, have no “economic moat” and losing employees and market-share steadily. Our local failing leftist, fish-wrap monopoly newspaper is one of his assets. So why does he own them? For political protection and cooperation.
When Buffet did sell off one of his declining media assets, the Washington Post, who did he sell it to? Jeff Bezos - another billionaire in need of a media outlet to push his interests.
TW is part of a small oligarchy of cable broadcasters, however, there is no real competition. Congress has given the cable broadcasters regional monopolies. Whichever territory TW operates, they operate as a monopoly.
In these and other ways, CNN is subsidized. When they crow about their 1st Amendment rights, keep in mind that they have and do exercise their monopolistic rights to prevent competitors from enjoying the fruits of their own 1st Amendment rights by an act of Congress giving TW/CNN regional monopolies that squash any other broadcast they deem unworthy. There is something to the argument that some make about Fox News being "controlled opposition" - whether as part of Fox News' philosophy, or by the fact that TW allows them (charges them too) a channel but refuses many others such as OAN for example. There are many other independent news media that would love a cable channel but either cannot afford the fees or are denied one by the competitive forces which TW exercises.
Despite all these advantages, CNN still sucks wind in the ratings - another argument showing that subsidies are generally bad for consumers. Consumers don't watch CNN nearly as much as their competitors, yet TW continues to give preferential treatment to its own news outlet.
Yes I realize this is tangential to the larger question but not irrelevant.
The most recent and egregious example in my mind is the Kavanaugh hearings. This story captivated the country (because the media chose to give it that much prominence, almost in lockstep) and was presented in some ways as a mystery - what happened to Dr. Ford 37 years ago. Many in the media insisted on or reported on the demand for a "complete investigation", and they spun the story hard against Kavanaugh despite the lack of corroborating evidence.
However, there was corroborating evidence, and that evidence was in the Senate record for weeks. There were 2 men who claimed in great detail that they were involved in an interaction with Dr. Ford at about the same time, in a house that fit her description, at a small gathering, even describing her clothing - and that their "make out session" was interrupted by one man 'dog-piling' on the two people on the bed. With all the media intention, the investigative reporters, the analysts and the talking heads - not one of these mainstream media outlets reported (or if they didn't give it any weight) on this! It's shockingly poor journalism to have ignored this fact. They were willing to smear Kavanaugh for political purposes that suited their partisanship in ignoring the distinct possibility that Dr. Ford simply misidentified the man she encountered. If it was a small story some details could be left out but this was a huge story with major national implications and an allegation that severely damaged a man's reputation.
They wanted us to "believe the accuser" despite the lack of corroboration - and kept repeating this demand for a complete investigation to find corroboration - but the corroborating evidence was there all along. It corroborated her story almost to a T, except however as to the person she accused. It was worse the dereliction, and too big of a story to have been overlooked. They deliberately, intentionally refused to report on this corroboration because it did not suit their agenda. Had they reported this, I think that the country would have overwhelmingly realized that Dr. Ford was simply mistaken as to whom it was she encountered that night. Along with the several other problems with her story, this evidence would have given much more reasonable doubt than just he-said she-said benefit of the doubt.
This example, in my mind, exemplifies how the media is completely partisan and willing to use their power - much of it as I wrote above derived from unfair business practices and self-interest - to push an agenda rather than to report on the news and seek the truth.
. . . wrote for the Wall Street Journal not so long ago. In one opinion he stated that conservatives think that the Constitution is so perfect and its government so stable that (my words not his) it doesnt even need to be conserved.A republic, if you can keep it? Not so much, in Brett Stephens mind . . .