Posted on 04/03/2013 11:13:54 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Los Angeles Times is up for sale, and there are super-wealthy conservative bidders. Get the popcorn out and watch the liberals squeal. The hilarious kickoff came when two leftist collectives -- the Daily Kos website and the California-based Courage Campaign Institute -- set out to buy an ad in the LA Times to protest the Koch brothers pondering a bid.
I kid you not, the ad began: "WE NEED NEWS, NOT MORE SPIN." This would assume that today's Los Angeles Times -- which just endorsed Obama's re-election -- is an oasis of objectivity in a desert of media bias. They were outraged when the Times used their owner's prerogative and refused to run the ad.
The Koch brothers are unqualified to own a newspaper, according to this ad. Why? Because they're conservative: "They bankroll the Tea Party. They deny global warming. They buy politicians and bust unions."
Michael Bloomberg bankrolls the anti-gun lobby. He "buys politicians" in that cause: He just spent $2.2 million in Chicago for a barrage of ads to beat gun-rights Democrat Debbie Halvorson in the House race to replace Jesse Jackson, Jr. He's even been accused of "union-busting." And he's presently the mayor of the nation's largest city. The Left hasn't run any ads against his qualifications to run Bloomberg Media, have they?
This is also funny because the Daily Kos crowd serves up a daily diet of counter-factual radical spin and nonsense, such as how the tea party is a gaggle of racist Nazis. They just argued Fox News was a "clear and present danger to America" because they weren't running enough live coverage of President Obama being applauded by supporters in Israel.
The Kos crowd has argued the liberal media are completely worthless in defending the Left's agenda. "This supposedly Liberal media was the media that allowed Republicans to almost sink the Affordable Care Act," they've complained, and "allowed birthers to have the semblance of plausibility" (?) and "provided a false equivalence to Republicans holding the entire country hostage to get their will because of the President's refusal of draconian cuts to the social safety net."
The Koch brothers aren't the only potential bidders for the LA Times that upset the Left. Rupert Murdoch is also quite interested in buying the Times and the Chicago Tribune from the troubled Tribune Company. One might think that Murdoch's sober journalistic operation of The Wall Street Journal after he bought it might calm the panic. You would be wrong.
In front of a graphic reading "Murdochopoly," Fox-hating Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show" announced the government has prevented cross-ownership of TV stations and newspapers in the past. "We wouldn't want Rupert Murdoch to be disproportionately powerful," said Jon Stewart. He fake-interviewed Murdoch with old video clips and asserted, "I assume you are asking us to waive our laws as a courtesy, so you don't have to break them."
Stewart ran clips of the News of the World phone-hacking scandal and associated Murdoch himself with "rampant law-breaking." Then he cracked, "and now you'd like a waiver to have another whack at a newspaper."
Stewart was also alarmed that Murdoch would boast that his media properties could swing elections or change the political agenda. "The law against media consolidation was really written with people like you in mind," Stewart lectured. "Well, actually you in particular, because of how you like to do the exact thing the law was created to prevent."
Liberal hypocrites claim to be defenders of freedom of speech -- but they can't stand it when a conservative owns a media outlet because that's not freedom. That's somehow an abuse of capitalism and of democracy. Liberal hypocrites think conservatives use their media outlets for partisan gain, but they somehow can't admit they've all been happily broadcasting from Obama's back pocket for five years. Time Warner's magazine can name him "Man of the Year" and compare him to Jesus in a manger, but that's defined as "independent" journalism.
But Stewart's hyperbolic hypocrisy may be the richest, as he pronounces his verdict from the mountain top of Viacom, which Stewart's leftist compatriots at PBS's "Frontline" have ranked as the second largest media conglomerate in the world, larger than Murdoch's News Corporation.
The Los Angeles Times used to be considered a Republican rag before Otis Chandler took the reins in 1960, just as the Chicago Tribune was considered a conservative outlet under Colonel Robert McCormick. At worst, the papers would only be returning to the their alleged old form. But liberals want to hold on to these media properties like they're captive nations, and they're going to fight it using the same phony argument that the conservative media make propaganda, and liberals just produce "news."
Now sales taxes are higher in Arizona than they are in CA! State government has turned left, hard.
Worse, I bought a house in Prescott Valley, thinking I would escape from high taxes - now I find this was a huge mistake.
I'm facing retirement, and the future in AZ looks little better than here in CA (Commie-Abyss.)
I enjoyed reading our newspaper The Leaf Chronicle, which was a nice little paper and just the right size. I canceled our subscription after they let the Gannet corporation take over, because there was nothing in that was of any interest to me. It took me five minutes to read what I found worthwhile.
I’m beginning to think that the walls that once kept people inside communist hell-holes weren’t such a bad thing after all....
Nuts! I proofread that and still...
“...it was her primary...” NOT “here primary”
But Stewart had no problem with AOL-TimeWarner when they merged? He didn't mind having Ted Turner on top of AOL, CNN, Time Magazine, HBO, and TBS?
-PJ
Of course not; it will further disturb the liberal media monopoly.
I’d love to see the Koch brothers take over Tribune and straighten out the place ASAP. Colonel McCormick would be proud.
Then support the Koch brothers in their bid for the paper.
Journalism in college - much like 'education' - is lots of 'group think' and not a lot of talent. They need to hire conservatives as reporters and teach them how to write. Middle class citizens who are actually part of the city - not elites who's real specialty is knowing the best heath club in town - would be a good start... For editors? Go with Sowell, Daniel Greenfield, and Jonah Goldberg... top conservative thinkers...
You got something against it?
Bill Whittle is certainly trying. Conservative seem to want to avoid the media all together so we get what we get.
I can say that if they don't invest in media they will have helped kill the government that made their wealth possible. Who will then protect their wealth?
Really? I was considering Prescott. I like the smaller community and of course, Arizona gun rights. Guess, I should stick with my first choice Reno, NV.
And without even mentioning that Larry O'Brien of the L. A. Slimes can't even discuss conservative ideas or politicians without showing us huge, staring eyes, veins standing out on his neck and temples, and froth on his lips.
Really? Reno. For gun rights. Ironic choice.
How can Conservatives run and operate a newspaper?
They are nowhere near as bright, intelligent, intellectual, smart and cerebral as Progressives, dontcha know.
(The only thing that Conservatives like to do is thump bibles, buy guns and ammunition and drag their knuckles, ya know?)
/s/
IMHO
In Philadelphia there are two newspapers and both are owned by something called (I think) Newscorp. Anyway they are both uber liberal rags, the Daily News and the Inquirer. A few years ago they were both about to go broke and an investment group pooled their money and bought them, saving them from certain collapse. However, the head of the group was a republican and the reporters revolted. They insisted he sign a pledge not to try to influence them or the editorial page or they would go on strike. He signed it, ensuring that the hard core lefties would remain and the paper would continue the downward spiral. Proves that just because someone who isn't a liberal democrat gets control of a newspaper you can't assume it will stop being a liberal rag.
About a year ago, the group sold the papers to another consortium, this time formed from a bunch of prominent rich democrats. Not a peep from the reporters about that.
News Corp is Rupert Murdoch.
The Philly Inquirer is (at least according to Wiki) owned by a group of local investors.
Agreed 100%!!
I haven’t bought an LA times in 15 years.
It’s been 10 years since I’ve even read it. But if I move from CA I’ll probably buy a once-a-week copy and have it mailed to me, and I cannot even tell you why.
That’s a fact.
You are correct, I misremembered. It’s called Philadelphia Media Holdings. When it was run by a republican (note I don’t say conservative because Brian Tierney is pretty establishment I think) the reporters raised hell. Now that it’s run by a democrat they are silent. There ya go.
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.