Billionaires Can Seem Like Saviors to Media Companies, but They Come With Risks

Ownership by billionaires “is not necessarily an act of charity...” nor should it be. The incredible bias against the business world in this country (yes, I just said that) prevents recognition that what we mean by business requires accurate intelligence and truthful commentary. “Business” is not just about money, although money is the grease and is always involved. Rich people need intelligence and truth as much as the rest of us. Nor is “non-profit” synonymous with charity. Non-profits need, even require, good business practices. The Sulzberger family has a long history of combining good business practice with operating a first-rate newspaper and even appears to be coping successfully with the horribly corrosive effects of the other mass media. In short, the failures of some media may well be, probably are, as much to do with resistance to good business practices (sometimes on the part of “purist” journalists) as to ownership by rich people.

We should look at the totality of these purchases. Yes, there have been some unfortunate outcomes, which should be noted. But a reasonable question, for which I don't have an answer, is - would these publications folded their operations even earlier if a new owner had not appeared. And I, for one, would like to give the Bezos, Benioff, Jobs, et al the benefit of the doubt if not heralded. The journalism that they are saving is critical. That doesn't mean that John Henry doesn't have a point. These publications should, at least, break even.

For the billionaire who has everything: his very own newspaper! Once you have all the toys you could ever enjoy, what else is there but the accumulation and wielding of power. The bending of the world around you to your will. That's why people like Bloomberg should concern everyone. He has very specific plans for all of us and a maniacal obsession for achieving them.

Sometimes there risks are the wealthy owners. In San Diego, millionaire Doug Manchester bought the Union-Tribune and sexual harassment was rampant by him and his cronies as documented in the Washington Post. Employees were helpless. Where do you turn when it's the owner doing the sexual harassment and the editor is enabling him. Jeff Light, who is still the editor, buried his head in the sand and pretended it wasn't going on. He even asked a newsroom employee to dye her hair platinum blond on behalf of Manchester. New billionaire LA Times owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong has endorsed Light, but obviously hasn't looked into his past.

Every large nonprofit goes through the same cycle eventually: Visionary leadership brings great growth, then the organization becomes stuffed with friends and family of the visionary who don't share their charisma or capabilities. When the visionary dies, the organization turns to a museum to the visionary's memory, and eventually the organization ossifies into a monument. When billionaires rescue news organizations, they start the process of running them like nonprofits. Look for the soft-focus hero treatment of Bezos when he passes, and don't be surprised when a Bezos family member takes over as CEO of The Washington Post.

If billionaires were really interested in helping support a free press they could buy newspapers, provided them with substantial endowments and turn them into cooperatives run by professional journalists.

We already have massive risks, this "newspaper" is a great example. They are so highly biased that journalist should not be used for them. Not only in the opinion area which is way bigger than it really should be for a NEWS paper. And in the headlines, the selection of stories, and the actual content of them. That is the risk.

The soical/cultural and often intellectual nitwits who have made a fortune through whatever means want to self-aggrandize through as much self-directed propaganda as possible. Ergo the purchase of well-known media outlets, such as Washington Post and Time magazine. I exclude Mr Bezos from the nitwit category, because he is a very intelligent, very driven individual who, along with many associates, created an extraordinary business from nothing a short time ago. He likely is more nerdish than socially and culturally aware about anything, but he appears that he is willing to learn about matters where his knowledge is lacking. Mr. Benioff, Ms. Jobs? Please.

Read Katherine Graham's biography and see how her father invested for many years in the struggling "Washington Post" until it finally made a profit against a much stronger newspaper. Graham's father enunciated the doctrine of enlightened proprietor ownership which became the model for publishers with strong opinions who gave the news editors freedom to investigate and print controversial stories like Watergate. But that was years later under his daughter who had some tough years managing the Post and Newsweek. Are billionaires like Murdoch destroying American journalism? Yes. Just read The Wall Street Journal today and compare it with the newspaper pre-Rupert. It is still accurate and authoritative, but something's missing. The real issue is the business model. Newspapers and magazines have to make money. Many are failing enterprises like our local Green Bay newspaper which is struggling under Gannett to keep advertisers and subscribers. We need a new model.

With Rupert Murdoch in Australia, Britain and America, we have a severe enough problem in gaining fairly reported accounts to make the others of far less matter.

"Unhealthy amount of influence"! That is precisely what oligarchs have done to countries like Russia, little Armenia, and others, where THEY are the ones who now influence,and even decide, which direction the country goes. Many, are helping to elect candidates some of whom are extreme right or extreme left. The new billionaires are making a mockery of democracy...the little guys (most of the country's citizens )have little to say...

Why is Murdoch not listed here? Fox News. Wall Street Journal. The major contributor to our dysfunctional political system.

Billionaires have egos and egos hate to look bad. As long as the papers and magazines make them look good, they will keep them going. But as soon as the shine starts to dull, people will be out of jobs when the business advisors convince the wealthy that their reputation is looking worse with their ownership on top of losing money. Making money feeds egos, losing money...not so much.

A well written and surprisingly accurate article, coming from the NY Times; no less. This is a problem that President Teddy Roosevelt had to deal with in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Robber Barons owning all the newspapers. Roosevelt knew that the first thing done in a political take over is to control the media. That' s why rebels always grab the TV and Radio stations during a revolt. Roosevelt used the Anti-Trust Laws to stop those takeovers. Equal and trust worthy freedom of the press; that reports the news, both sides of an issue fairly, and does not make the news is critical to Democracy and Freedom of Choice. Something has to be done about the loss of fair news sources to today's Robber Baron's. Anti-Trust laws need to be heavily enforced, and maybe a little Government financial and moral support for fair journalism should be considered. Although, that could lead to other problems, such as Gov. Control of the media i.e. PRAVDA 2018.

This is another example of people overthinking an issue. Conservatives have no compunction of buying media (FOX, Sinclair, etc.) and controlling the information fed to too many people who appear to live in a bubble. Do you really want those benefactors who believe in real journalism and a fact driven world to stand down because it is "unhealthy" for them to have so much influence. Just yield the field to those who have no compunction of filling your head with phony issues, bigotry and fear.

I had my doubts about the new ownership of the LA Times. However, the paper couldn’t have gotten worse so I kept my subscription. I’ve been happy with the improvements so far. Much better coverage of California issues. Decent on line usability. So I am seeing the upside of the take over. The real problem is the local small town news. No real reporting in this rag that is owned by a conglomerate and not even printed in town. We get high school news, traffic accidents or fires and occasional pictures of bears.

Individual billionaires, with very strong opinions in complete control of information.......what could possibly go wrong. I guess it is better than having the government in control, but not by much and it really depends on what side of the aisle your stand with your politics. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

“They are buying up the free press, which is meant to hold them accountable.” That's a good one! A "press" that feeds on handouts from press offices and rushes like lemmings to photo-ops. An industry driven by maximizing advertising revenue at all levels. While they are definitely less heated than the gutter press of other countries, I can't help noticing that the US media industry and their various news gathering arms don't have stories about the US that routinely show up in such outlets as the BBC. Why not, I wonder?

Start strictly local. Sell swag. Reinvest income, not outside money with equity strings attached, to expand. Offer something unique when possible, and at least something worth reading otherwise. Bootstrap media can be done, even now. Especially now. Don't ever let the advertising-pirate equity-industrial complex say otherwise. They have an interest in making you pay with interest for what was once a piece of your pie. An "activist investor" thief like Icahn or Ricketts here, a renegotiation of advertiser contracts there, and pretty soon more than half of your publication is hawking perfumes (with sniff tabs, if you're lucky) and the other half is scared to investigate their..."eau de toilette" labor practices, let's say. Like any mafioso, they'll gladly remind you that they OWN you. For now, Bezos isn't meddling a lot with WaPo, but I don't trust that powder keg of wealth ambition to keep it that way, at all. He gave us Amazon. That's cause for pause enough!

“There are clearly billionaires who are buying up publications because they want to want to influence political discourse in the country.” Never have I seen a more frightening statement than this.

I’ll take these billionaires over Murdoch and Sinclair any day of the week.

Jeff Bezos does not own the Washington Post out of charity. Even if the paper is too proud to be so vulgar as to directly help his bottom line the way Fox News might, the Post's bias and worldview are aligned with his own: social liberalism to target bourgeois professionals, combined with a pro-global capitalist, neoliberal economic disposition that helps Amazon and the world's richest man. The Post's direct reporting on Bezos and Amazon, while attempting neutrality, has also largely been sympathetic.