Finally a different voice in print

Tagged:  

But for all these financial contributions to the grassroots and political sides of the conservative movement, the Kochs had yet to build up their influence in the media. That state of affairs may now be at an end, as the two are said to be considering buying the $7 billion Tribune newspaper company, which owns such well-known papers as The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Baltimore Sun, The Orlando Sentinel and The Hartford Courant.

The New York Times reports:

The papers, valued at roughly $623 million, would be a financially diminutive deal for Koch Industries, the energy and manufacturing conglomerate based in Wichita, Kan., with annual revenue of about $115 billion.

Politically, however, the papers could serve as a broader platform for the Kochs’ laissez-faire ideas. The Los Angeles Times is the fourth-largest paper in the country, and The Tribune is No. 9, and others are in several battleground states, including two of the largest newspapers in Florida, The Orlando Sentinel and The Sun Sentinel in Fort Lauderdale. A deal could include Hoy, the second-largest Spanish-language daily newspaper, which speaks to the pivotal Hispanic demographic.[...] Original story on theblaze.com

I fully expect that ignorant Wolfman will now follow this post with numerous YouTube videos which have been posted before purporting to show how bad the Koch brothers are and their influence on American politics. If their influence is so large why is Obama still in office? Let the posting and re-posting begin.

No votes yet

When I was a kid the teacher explained that Russians believed all the information fed to them by Pravda because that was the only game in town. The Wall Street Journal used to be required ready for college business majors because it was considered reliable. Then Rupert Murdoch bought it and now it's about as trustworthy as the Washington Times or Fox News.

As for the Koch brothers being less than honest, how much time do you have?

Not My First Rodeo, I just dropped the Wall Street Journal because of what you just said. The whole paper (in my opinion) has become nothing more than an opinion paper. As for the LA Times and Chicago Tribune both were rumored to be bought by Rupert Murdoch but his media concentration in those markets have been problematic with the FCC. So I believe yet another Plutocrat will step up an probably be a shadow owner for Murdoch.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

What changes have you noted at the WSJ that have occured since Murdoch's corporation acquired it?

MikeyA

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

How do you pronounce KOCH? Is it the COCK brothers?

Their name is pronounce "cook', put their companies go by names indicating they are anything BUT what they actually do. That includes some "industry" groups they control/own.

I always thought, "If I were a billionaire, I'd buy all of the liberal newspapers and fire all of the staffs." Tee-hee--a couple of billionaires are actually going to do that! I hope those "journalists" are acquiring other skills like automobile mechanics and hamburger frying because they're going to need new careers!

...nd fire the journals who can't keep their personal opinions on the editorial page. Free speech is still the most powerful weapon on the planet. When dictators take over, the first thing they grab are the newspapers and television stations.

The people in North Korea think their leader is a God and Americans are the devil trying to destroy them. The North Koreans also don't know how bad things are in their country because all the information they get is controlled.

I despise any news source, conservative or liberal, that lies. I used to watch Fox News as a game to see how often they "twist" facts. I used to watch The Young Turks for the exact same reason.

Those of us old enough can tell of extreme right groups getting so extreme they actually become left leaning groups. And extreme left groups ending up on the right. Call me a moderate, but I just want to enjoy a free and honest life without the loud mouths telling me what to think.

The problem with Fox News is it is sensationalisitc. The "Fox News Alert" is central to it.

The problem with the people who talk about Fox News is on t.v. they cannot tell the difference between commentary and news reporting.

For instance, Shepard Smith is a news reporter, Sean Hannity is a commentator. Yet when people talk about fox it's almost always about Hannity, O'Reilly, or a contributing commentator who is asked to give their opinion during a news segment.

As for journalists who can't keep their personal opinions on the editorial page, most news reporters self define as liberal, and it's not even close to a 50/50 split.

MikeyA

Sensationalism and laziness with a liberal aganda...

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Recently in Northwest Ohio our Congressman threw some Tea Parties. There was a lot of talk about government intervention in private industry - They didn't like it.

About a month later, this very same Congressman made a big deal about getting aid to local farmers. Uh, isn't that the government intervention they were all complaining about a few weeks earlier?

So who are the liberals and who are the conservatives in all of this? And yesterday a gun buyer background check requirement failed in the Democrat controlled U.S. Senate. A bill supported by over 90% of Americans. And strangely, it was more heavily supported in conservative states than is states labeled as being more liberal.

Maybe we should spend less time calling each other names and spend more time listening to one another.

If it was supported by 90% of Americans it would have passed no problem.

That's the problem with the same talking heads you decry in your previous post. The poll in question was 90% of Americans support background checks for gun buyers. That doesn't mean they supported the bill or the bill's expanded background checks.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes--centers/polling-institute/national...

Also that poll was only conducted seven states.

"And strangely, it was more heavily supported in conservative states than is states labeled as being more liberal." yuck. I don't even know where to begin with this statement. It's untrue. 75% of people actually think guns make their home safer. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/18/majority-of-am... Conservatives agree with that statement to a tune of 71% so to say conservative states support it more requires a huge jump in reality.

MikeyA

So you think the vote and/or the outcome of the Senate vote represented the will of the people? That will make a GREAT poll. Thanks.

Oh, just for the record, do YOU think the vote represented the will of the people?
And, do YOU think the outcome of the vote represented the will of the people?

The will of the people. We have a system that allows for the will of the people to have a say. They're elections.

Yes, the will of the people was represented.

The will of the people of NY is in favor of the expanded background checks in the bill, both of their Seators voted for the bill.

Now since 1/3rd of the Senate is up for reelection in a little over a year the vote hinged on them. Rob Portman included. Now being that he has to face the voters this year, and Ohio has moved the last several years to expand gun rights, I would say in Ohio, the will of the people was most certainly done.

If I am wrong, there will be a lot of new senators in 2014.

MikeyA

From today's USA Today.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/22/usa-today-poll-fi...

"Americans are more narrowly divided on the issue than in recent months, and backing for a bill has slipped below 50%, the poll finds. By 49%-45%, those surveyed favor Congress passing a new gun-control law. In an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll in early April, 55% had backed a stricter gun law, which was down from 61% in February."

Nowhere near 90%.

MikeyA

wonder if Block Industries would be up for sale...

or if readership is so low that it wouldnt be worth making a difference?

The Blade really disappoints me. They could make a real difference by just printing all the facts and letting the people decide which side of an issue to come down on. The local news broadcasts have become so much like Fox News, you can't get decent information locally anymore.

Does this look familiar to anyone else?

I appreciate the fact that you were in a hurry to flirt with Wolfman, but cite the source of the text from your post. It takes only a few extra mouse clicks and keeps you from looking like a thieving plagiarist.

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

If you are talking about my post you'll see the cite link right after the first paragraph

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

Doesn't look like there's a link there. I see that you appended the copied text with the name of the site you got the text from, which is probably the best we can hope for from old media types like yourself.

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

I think these liberal malcontents should focus on pressure cookers, and firecrackers, and keeping this stuff out of the hands of idiots on terror watch lists.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.