Are we really going to pretend that legacy media hasn't always been brokered and controlled by immensely wealthy individuals, some would even say monopolistic elites?
The author should watch Citizen Kane and learn a thing or two.
The author should watch Citizen Kane and learn a thing or two.
I've watched Citizen Kane, and I'm unclear about what you think the author should learn from it. Could you please explain?
Here are some names off the top of my head: Rupert Murdoch. Robert Maxwell. John Edward Taylor.
I'm sure five minutes' duckduckgoing would bring in several more.
They started out as publishers. I do not know about the other guy
The point is billionaires think that being rich equates with being smart equates with always being right which equates with being a bully
Elon is a perfect example. He is rich and smart, but definitely not always right and certainly a bully
You can't allow news distribution or news analysis to be controlled by people with other interests than yours, and billionaires certainly have other interests. This was well understood by social democrats in Sweden, who as soon as they were established started their owns newspapers.
One must start ones own newspapers , appoint the journalists and be careful with their incentives. You want the newspaper you read seriously to be your personal intelligence organisation, and you should be as careful with who you appoint as the CIA is. You want something which only delivers the most reasonable analysis, without regard to consequences.
These things exist internally in banks when it comes to things that have effects on the stock market or the economy. There is however no present newspaper that can be used like that. They're all somebody else's propaganda, with the exception of the Swish-journalists.