The Right-Wing Media Takeover Is Destroying America
The purchase of The Baltimore Sun is further proof that conservative billionaires understand the power of media control. Why don’t their liberal counterparts get it?
You have no doubt seen the incredibly depressing news about the incredibly depressing purchase of The Baltimore Sun by the incredibly depressing David Smith, chairman of Sinclair Broadcast Group, the right-wing media empire best known for gobbling up local television news operations and forcing local anchors to spout toxic Big Brother gibberish like this.
The Sun was once a great newspaper. I remember reading, once upon a time, that it had sprung more foreign correspondents into action across the planet than any American newspaper save The New York Times and The Washington Post. It had eight foreign bureaus at one point, all of which were shuttered by the Tribune Company by 2006. But the Sun’s real triumphs came in covering its gritty, organic city. And even well after its glory days, it still won Pulitzers—as recently as 2020, for taking down corrupt Mayor Catherine Pugh, who served a stretch in prison thanks to the paper.
Because they don't exist. I do not believe it is possible to be truly progressive, have left leaning morals, and be a billionaire. The only way to aquire enough money to control the media narrative of a country the size of America is to be a massive piece of shit. Even the "good" billionaires got there by stepping on as many fingers as possible while they climbed the ladder. Our system inherently rewards people with bad morals, and then enables them to control the conversation for everyone else. Which they obviously use to further their shitty ideas
Demand free speech rights for leftists. That's literally how the conservative takeover started: demanding free speech rights for conservatives, leading to the Telecommunications Act which empowered this Sinclair slime.
So Taylor Swift is a massive piece of shit?
Little Miss Carbon Emissions? I'd say polluting the Earth at rates thousands of times higher than the average person kind of makes you a massive piece of shit. Just because she's nice doesn't mean her lifestyle is acceptable.
I'd say the fossil fuel lobby has done a great job pairing with their Conservative allies in media to deflect blame off themselves and towards celebrities.
It's not just celebrities, it's politicians, it's inherited wealth.
It's everyone who meets up at Davos, the corporate side, the business side, the governmental side.
Private jets, yachts, need to be banned outright. We have zoom. This ain't the 1950s anymore.
fake nice
I’d argue that, of course, she isn’t. But by the standards of the person you’re responding to, in order for her to be truly altruistic, she should, ideally, just give all her money away. Of course, she would keep enough for herself to live a modestly, comfortable life, and, of course, she has a constant income stream by which she would continue to earn large amounts of money… but, by keeping all of her money, she’s making a negative moral and ethical choice by not sharing all of that wealth with those who very much need it.
Does that make her a piece of shit necessarily? Again, I would say no (edit: this has to do with a complex calculus of circumstances specific to Miss Swift). But, following the moral ethical logic of the person to whom you responded, and many others, holding onto all of that wealth is neither moral nor ethical. 
Edit: please note that I am not necessarily making this argument, myself; I’m just trying to answer your question. Although, in my opinion, Taylor Swift is not a piece of shit.
Being a billionaire,regardless of how you became a billionaire, is unethical and immoral.
That’s a valid argument to make. The question, however, was “Is Taylor Swift a massive piece of shit?” IMO she is not.
So the better question is: Does being immoral and unethical, due to being a billionaire, make you a "massive piece of shit"?
Me? No,.I don't think it does. BUT I don't know Taylor Swift personally. She's never invited me over for Mani/Pedi spa days nor do I follow her in entertainment news/gossip so she definitely could be and I wouldn't know.
I think that is both of the questions just asked together, in a more efficient manner. technically, I think that is a better question. 
She's also not really a billionaire. She's worth $1.1bil, but I highly doubt that's tied up in physical investments and liquid assets. Her art is popular, and she's in demand, but when her popularity inevitably fades one day, her net worth will also depreciate.
Um actually, they're only worth that much on paper, it's all assets that they can't...
Shut the fuck up. She could rent Liechtenstein, she owns multiple airplanes, and her dog's closet is bigger than my home. Stop bootlicking. Who gives a shit what her wealth looks like? She has more money than people are even capable of imagining, why does it matter?
Being rich ≠ being a billionaire. I don't know why you're butthurt over reality, but lying about the facts of the matter is just creating outrage where none reasonably exists. Want to get pissed off because she's richer than most people? Fine. But don't lie just to go off on a "billionaires are unethical" tirade and aim it at someone who isn't one.
Observing the facts is not bootlicking. Sorry that makes you uncomfortable, but grow the fuck up.
You mean like claiming that someone with a net "worth" of over a billion isn't a billionaire, setting arbitrary conditions on accepting reality?
Twisting them into a pretzel to deny that a billionaire is a billionaire is awfully close, though.
You should take your own advice and stop inventing alternative definitions for clearly defined words such as "billionaire", "facts", "reality" and "lying".
Net worth of an artist ≠ net worth of a real estate mogul. Unlike the real estate mogul, she can't just sell off her voice and personality, the core of her "value." It's not my problem you don't like those facts.
If you want to be mad at her for being wealthy, for flying on private jets or whatever, fine. I'm not her fan. I don't give a fuck. But don't go tilting at windmills over her being a billionaire, when that label is applied artificially.
Whether you're in real estate, the arts or any other business, you don't become a billionaire without stepping on a lot of people and being extremely exploitative.
It's such an absurdly large amount of hoarded treasure, no matter how much you try to play it off as not counting when you sing or whatever nonsense you've convinced yourself of.
That she can't get rid of a couple of her many sources of income doesn't make her any less of a billionaire
You haven't argued from fact at any point, only your completely baseless opinion that a billionaire who sings isn't really a billionaire.
Could have fooled me!
No, that "label" describes anyone with a net "worth" of a billion or more, regardless of sources of income. That's what the word FACTUALLY means, no matter how little you like that fact.
Okay, you sure showed me. Bye.
How much are her dancers paid? Session musicians? Staff? PR team? Tour team?
I agree with you... But...
Yes
Probably, yeah. Also, Trouble is her only good song and even that one's better in the meme version with the goats.
I’ve also heard she has a bad reputation.
Aww you made me hope for the Joan Jett's banger Bad Reputation rather than another boring Taylor Swift song 😮💨
We’re all massive pieces of shit, myself included. She is trapped in a system that incentivizes wealth accumulation over wealth distribution.
Bring back the Fairness Doctrine. It's abolishment ruined news and talk radio.
And reinstate the restrictions on media ownership that were dropped with the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
This is the reason why Indie music died. This bullshit is why clearchannel was able to buy practically every radio station in the country and turn all music into anodyne garbage pop music.
This is the only correct answer. The fairness doctrine will only do jack and shit. Because who decides what's fair, and what's considered as a worthy view.
Eliminating media homogeny is one of the best things we could do. Plenty of outlets with wealthy owners will still get together to push one narrative or another. But if they don't have tight control of everything. There will be other narratives able to flourish. Did something love I
Demand free speech rights for leftists. That's literally how the conservative takeover started: demanding free speech rights for conservatives, leading to the Telecommunications Act which empowered this Sinclair slime.
And citizens united, and the Frank Dodd act while you’re at it
Just go all the way back undoing all the bullshit court decisions catalogued here: https://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/
Glass-Stegall might help.
Please and thank you very much!
Citizens United has a very physical building we can protest outside of
I'm not so sure about that. The Fairness Doctrine required that all sides be presented as having equal weight, which in our time would include Nazism, eugenics and Fascism.
These were also very much present in 1949 when the act was introduced
And no it didnt, as it was coupled with FCC regulations that demanded that broadcast media serve the common good.
There are ZERO leftist voices in media. Reinstating the Fairness Act is a step towards changing that.
Demand free speech rights for leftists. That's literally how the conservative takeover started: demanding free speech rights for conservatives, leading to the Telecommunications Act which empowered this Sinclair slime.
This is a huge problem. The TV / radio stations that pump out MAGA drivel far outweigh any that are neutral, which is the most that the Dems have to offer.
And that’s the crux of the information battle. Quiet honest and neutrality, vs screeching lies and a right wing bias that’s so hard they are horizontal.
This is why, I suspect, that millennials and Gen Z are getting their news and information from nonstandard sources, like podcasts and Tik Tok.
They do, but they support it. People need to realize "liberalism" is still right wing, and right wing is always anti-people/pro-monopolization.
We have no leftist presence or voice in America, and it really shows as democrats keep marching further right to court "centrists" that are never going to vote for them.
Bright side - more people seem to realize mid right or far right isn't the choiciest of choices, but downside is it's far too late.
My old polisci professors would probably argue that there are right wing, left wing, and centrist forms of liberalism.
The political compass is an arguably silly example of this, but there is a point that being on one end of a social spectrum doesn’t mean you’re on the same end of an economic spectrum.
Individual rights - state/federal authority Welfare - slavery with extra steps Individual well-being - collective economic power Local direct democracy - nationwide democracy of the peerage Isolation - global influence
There's so many ways to slice it. These are off the cuff - but it most certainly isn't a 1 or 2 axis space
Demand free speech rights for leftists. That's literally how the conservative takeover started: demanding free speech rights for conservatives, leading to the Telecommunications Act which empowered this Sinclair slime.
There are no liberal counterparts. The billionaires are all capitalists. That's all there is to it. Any other political theater they perform for you playing left and right is just theater.
Dems and Republicans are identical parties on economic policy (note I said economic, not all policies).
I mean, even economically they aren't the same. Biden's advancing a wealth tax, can you imagine Trump or McConnell doing that?
Biden is performing theater about doing that. When was the last time dems actually managed a significant wealth tax? LOL
It is pure theater. If anything like that ever got close to passing, and the paid actors Sinema snd Mansion weren't enough, then they'd just pick another actor or two so the dems could pretend they really wanted to but no matter how much power they have its not possible to actually DO something.
The fact that it's nearly impossible to get liberal policies past a Senate where representation is heavily skewed in favor of Republicans does not equate to a conspiracy that the tiny margins Democrats are still sometimes able to eek out are then intentionally sabotaged. That's some conspiratorial BS. The simple fact is that Dems are playing a rigged game and always have been. Both-sidesing the parties when one of those parties is full of literal Nazis is simply ignorant and requires a lot of mental gymnastics and outright ignorance to get onboard with.
The helpless dems excuse has been used by apologists for the past 50+ years of failure to do anything!
Patently untrue.
I mean, I get what you're trying to say. That both parties serve the interests of the rich few over the majority. But it's just false that they are identical parties on economic policy.
I don't think they're the same on economics, neoliberals push for advantages to entrenched entities and the status quo, while post-neoconservatives push for rapid moves and sabotaging existing systems
The combination of the two is crippling, and they have a lot in common (like cutting welfare programs and shaping the landscape to put up barriers of entry to reduce competition), but their styles are very different
An important thing to note - it's not a single dichotomy, there's 3-6 axises, minimum.
The worst crackdown in recent memory on welfare happened under Clinton and the neolibs. I think both of these groups have examples of doing the things you've listed.
I appreciate your insights but respectfully disagree as there are examples of your listed priorities across party lines.
The end part is right. The same billionaires and companies pay both sides campaign bills. Which is why they're basically the same economically.
You're correct about Clinton, but that's not the norm. Normally, they go one step forward one step back, but they're happy to cut welfare quietly
But today, Republicans don't really go after welfare anymore - they try to pass corporate welfare and slash regulation instead
"They're the same" is a shortcut our minds take to make thinking simpler. It skips thinking about a bunch of details.
They're similar, but not the same - the subtleties matter. Even if you want to replace them all, it's important to understand them at a level deeper than "they're all corporate shills".
You have to be able to communicate about them clearly and be able to evaluate fresh faces, otherwise you're just generally complaining about how things suck
How are these acquisitions making them enough money to bother with given the state of news outlets in general? Arguably among the reasons they're able to happen at all is that many newsrooms are struggling to even remain operational, resulting in their owners selling them off to cut their losses.
Yet even after acquisition, have there been any indications that the new owners are doing any better with them financially?
I assume they're willing to take the loss to help preserve the political landscape that allows them to protect and grow their financial interests in other markets. They may not really care if the media outlets are profitable.
Opinions are cheap. So cheap people will offer them up on the internet for free.
Journalism is expensive. Gotta chase down leads that go nowhere. Gotta work hard to confirm a source, because you don't want to be just printing rumours, right?
Right-wing media doesn't need to pay the cost of journalism. They print opinion and rumours. So a right-wing paper is cheaper to run than a paper that has journalists working for it.
www.baltimorebrew.com
Wow. Welcome to 2002. No shit.
No it isn’t. Stop with the sensationalist headlines. It s scares the kids!