I guess that's why it's called television programming
Last edited:
This is extremely dangerous to our democracy...
- Thread starter BitchI'llKillYa
- Start date
Some ole Manchurian Candidate shit, good stuff.
They don' even make the effort to flip the script aT all
Uh, this has been going on for awhile now —Broadcasting companies buying local affiliate channels. However, this company called Sinclair is troubling. They’re buying a lot of affiliate channels in major markets and using it to spin Trumpian talking points. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people that don’t watch cable news, they only watch the local affiliate nightly news. Which is normally dependable and only looking to report the news of the day.
I use to work for a broadcasting company back in the day that owned local affiliate channels in a few major markets. The owners were Republican leaning, but they didn’t try to dictate the news. They even started a political news magazine ( I won’t tell you which one) that is/was fair and balanced.
I use to work for a broadcasting company back in the day that owned local affiliate channels in a few major markets. The owners were Republican leaning, but they didn’t try to dictate the news. They even started a political news magazine ( I won’t tell you which one) that is/was fair and balanced.
Those who own the media, control the narrative!!
Who Owns What Brands In Digital Media
Traditional media conglomerates are increasingly bumping up against powerful tech and telecom companies in the rush to reach users and attract advertisers across as many screens and platforms as possible. This chart, though far from comprehensive, offers a glimpse into the vast holdings of some big media companies in the news.
Walt Disney Co.
Market cap: $165 billion
BRANDS
The pending deal to acquire much of 21st Century Fox would give Disney a majority stake in Hulu.
21st Century Fox
Market cap: $65 billion
BRANDS
An acquisition by Disney is pending. The deal does not include Fox News, Fox Business, the Fox TV network, Fox’s national sports networks, its regional Big Ten collegiate network, or the stake in Roku.
Executive Chairman Rupert Murdoch is also executive chairman at News Corp., which owns The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, HarperCollins and other media. Murdoch’s original News Corp. conglomerate split into 21st Century Fox and the print-focused News Corp. in 2013.
Time Warner Inc.
Market cap: $72 billion
BRANDS
An acquisition by AT&T is pending.
AT&T Inc.
Market cap: $239 billion
BRANDS
Market cap: $191 billion
BRANDS
Some of the investments are through Comcast Ventures.
CBS Corp.
Market cap: $24 billion
BRANDS
Market cap: $13 billion
BRANDS
Market cap: Privately owned
BRANDS
Market cap: $216 billion
BRANDS
Market cap: $566 billion
BRANDS
Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos also owns The Washington Post.
Alphabet Inc./Google
Market cap: $741 billion
BRANDS
The investments are through GV, the venture capital arm of Alphabet.
Facebook Inc.
Market cap: $518 billion
BRANDS
Notes
Last updated Dec. 22, 2017.
Source: Corporate websites and press releases, Bloomberg Markets
Credit: Maria Hollenhorst, Alina Selyukh, Katie Park and Ayda Pourasad/NPR
Who Owns What Brands In Digital Media
Traditional media conglomerates are increasingly bumping up against powerful tech and telecom companies in the rush to reach users and attract advertisers across as many screens and platforms as possible. This chart, though far from comprehensive, offers a glimpse into the vast holdings of some big media companies in the news.
Walt Disney Co.
Market cap: $165 billion
BRANDS
- 21st Century Fox and its properties (pending)
- ABC: News, Daytime, TV Network
- ESPN
- Disney Channel
- Freeform (formerly ABC Family)
- Walt Disney Studios
- Pixar
- Marvel
- Touchstone Pictures
- Lucasfilm
- Disney Digital Network (absorbed Maker Studios)
- Polaris
- Disneyland, Walt Disney World and other parks and resorts
- Hulu
- Vice Media
- A&E
- History Channel
- Lifetime
The pending deal to acquire much of 21st Century Fox would give Disney a majority stake in Hulu.
21st Century Fox
Market cap: $65 billion
BRANDS
- FOX: News, Business, Sports, TV network
- National Geographic Partners: Channel, Magazine and other media assets
- FX
- Twentieth Century Fox Film
- Fox Searchlight Pictures
- Blue Sky Studios
- Hulu
- Vice Media
- Endemol Shine Group
- Sky plc
- Roku
An acquisition by Disney is pending. The deal does not include Fox News, Fox Business, the Fox TV network, Fox’s national sports networks, its regional Big Ten collegiate network, or the stake in Roku.
Executive Chairman Rupert Murdoch is also executive chairman at News Corp., which owns The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, HarperCollins and other media. Murdoch’s original News Corp. conglomerate split into 21st Century Fox and the print-focused News Corp. in 2013.
Time Warner Inc.
Market cap: $72 billion
BRANDS
- CNN
- HBO
- Warner Brothers: Entertainment, Motion Pictures, Television, Records
- Cinemax
- TBS
- TNT
- NBA.com
- NCAA.com
- TMZ.com
- Adult Swim
- Cartoon Network
- DC Comics
- Bleacher Report
- Hulu
- The CW
- Fandango
An acquisition by AT&T is pending.
AT&T Inc.
Market cap: $239 billion
BRANDS
- AT&T
- DirecTV
- Cricket Wireless
- U-verse
- YP.com (aka Yellowpages.com)
- Sky Brasil
- Time Warner and its properties (pending)
- Otter Media
Market cap: $191 billion
BRANDS
- XFINITY
- NBC: News, Sports, TV Network
- MSNBC
- CNBC
- NBC Entertainment
- Telemundo
- Bravo
- Sprout
- USA Network
- Syfy
- E!
- Philadelphia Flyers
- Universal Pictures
- DreamWorks Animation
- Focus Features
- Universal Studios and other parks and resorts
- Golf Channel
- Oxygen
- Hulu
- BuzzFeed
- Tastemade
- Vox Media: Vox, The Verge, SB Nation, Eater, Recode, Polygon, Curbed
- The Weather Channel
- Fandango
- FanDuel
- Instacart
- TuneIn
- Houzz
- Nextdoor
- Flipboard
- AwesomenessTV
- Slack
- Zola
Some of the investments are through Comcast Ventures.
CBS Corp.
Market cap: $24 billion
BRANDS
- CBS: News, TV, Radio, Entertainment, Sports
- Showtime
- Simon & Schuster
- Smithsonian Channel
- CNET
- ZDNet
- TVGuide.com
- Last.fm
- Metacritic
- Chowhound
- GameSpot
- Watch! Magazine
- The CW
Market cap: $13 billion
BRANDS
- Paramount Pictures
- BET
- Comedy Central
- MTV
- VH1
- Nickelodeon
- Spike
- CMT
- Centric
- Logo TV
- TV Land
- Tr3s
- Roku
Market cap: Privately owned
BRANDS
- Univision: TV, Radio, Digital Networks
- Fusion
- The Onion: The A.V. Club, ClickHole
- The Root
- Jalopnik
- Jezebel
- Deadspin
- Lifehacker
- Kotaku
- Uforia
- El Rey Network
Market cap: $216 billion
BRANDS
- Verizon Wireless
- Fios
- Oath: AOL + Yahoo!
- Flickr
- Tumblr
- HuffPost
- Engadget
- TechCrunch
- MAKERS
- BUILD Studios
- Rivals.com
- Ryot
- go90
- Terremark
- Complex Media
- RatedRed.com
- AwesomenessTV
- Seriously.TV
Market cap: $566 billion
BRANDS
- Amazon: Prime, Cloud Drive, Web Services, Marketplace
- Whole Foods
- Echo
- Fire TV
- Kindle
- Audible
- Twitch
- IMDb
- Goodreads
- AbeBooks
- ComiXology
- DPReview
- Zappos and other online retailers
- Instacart
Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos also owns The Washington Post.
Alphabet Inc./Google
Market cap: $741 billion
BRANDS
- YouTube
- Android, Chrome, Nexus, Pixel
- Google Home
- Blogger
- Zagat
- Nest
- Waze
- Verily
- Google: Search, Gmail, Maps, Hangouts and other apps
- Project Fi
- Giphy
- Medium
- TuneIn
- Slack
- Uber
- Lyft
- Confide
- Nextdoor
The investments are through GV, the venture capital arm of Alphabet.
Facebook Inc.
Market cap: $518 billion
BRANDS
- Facebook
- WhatsApp
- Oculus
- Facebook Messenger
- Internet.org
Notes
Last updated Dec. 22, 2017.
Source: Corporate websites and press releases, Bloomberg Markets
Credit: Maria Hollenhorst, Alina Selyukh, Katie Park and Ayda Pourasad/NPR
Media Control
‘The Media’ is an incredibly powerful way to send information and messages to specific groups of people, a particular society, or just about everyone on the planet.
Any organisation that controls mainstream media has incredible power over what people do and how they perceive and think about the world they live in.
The definition of media as defined in the Business Dictionary:
Communication channels through which news, entertainment, education, data, or promotional messages are disseminated. Media includes every broadcasting and narrowcasting medium such as newspapers, magazines, TV, radio, billboards, direct mail, telephone, fax, and internet. Media is the plural of medium and can take a plural or singular verb, depending on the sense intended.
We are surrounded by various forms of media just about wherever we go. From watching TV to travelling in our car, we will encounter some kind of message that someone wants us to take notice of.
If you were to think of the media you encounter during your average day, this could encompass TV, radio, internet, email, advertising posters/signs, and even messages in the workplace. A constant bombardment of messages, both conscious and subliminal, enters our brains in an average day.
We may think that we choose to ignore much of the information that enters our conscious mind, but every time we see or hear some form of media our brains register it. So, if we are exposed to something often enough, our subconscious will recognise the message.
The message(s) from those who produce the media could be anything from a ‘public service’ announcement giving us some kind of advice (which may or may not be useful to us) through to telling how great some product is and that we should go and buy it.
With media messages being such an important part of communicating with the masses it is no surprise that a massive amount of money is spent on developing message formats and new ways to deliver messages. Being a ‘PR’ guru in today’s society is a big earner.
Messages can be delivered overtly (such as advertising, news ‘articles’ etc., new programmes) or covertly through television programmes and films (think of the massive market in product placement in film and TV). Press releases, press conferences, spokesmen, spin-doctors, and so on all influence what we see, what we hear, and how we are told we should interpret events.
This is what election campaigns are designed to do. The ‘party’ (or advertiser) want us to think they are the best and do wonderful things for us, and have our best interests at heart. Unfortunately, despite the money spent on these campaigns, very few of the advertisers deliver the promises they make. Perhaps this could be considered false advertising.
A major user of media is government. The government will try and communicate all kinds of messages to us, presenting them as beneficial to our society in some way. Even if the proposal behind the message is formed to control and manipulate us, the PR gurus will get to work trying to deceive us by presenting the subject as being in our best interests. As with political campaigns, the reality of the impact of these messages is often very different from what is promised. A government using media is attempting to control us in some way. Whether this is good for society or not will depend on the motives or agenda of those in power.
If someone controls the distribution of media they may well find that they accumulate a lot of government ‘friends’, because the government want every media message that involves them to portray them in a good (or at least acceptable) light to the public. Bad media coverage can make or break a government, or any other organisation or person.
Let’s look at a hypothetical (perhaps) example. The government has decided that they want every member of society to carry identity cards so they can keep track of who does what and where they do it. To present this to people as it really is would probably meet very strong resistance and could potentially result in public criticism of the government, and could ultimately result in its downfall.
So what could the government do? Wrap the idea up in pretty paper! They could probably start a PR campaign concentrating on ‘benefits’ that the public are more likely to accept, such as security. The government could state that identity cards would prevent terrorists (using societies fear) from infiltrating society (as if that would stop them). They could state that it would make certain transactions more secure (as if they couldn’t be forged like passports, bank cards etc), or stop unauthorised ‘aliens’ from accessing valuable public services.
Even though the government could have another (often long-term) agenda, the media machine could be used to try and convince the majority of the population that the introduction of identity cards is a good thing. All they need is the majority and the objectors will be forced to accept the idea.
The relationship between government and news media is a close one. Though offering incentives or using ‘friendly’ expert sources the government could tell the population anything they wanted them to believe – and keep telling them until the majority believe it.
As the old saying goes ‘If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it’ – and how true this have proven to be.
So who ‘owns’ or controls the media? This will depend on where you live. For example, in China just about every form of media is strictly controlled by the state., while in Western society we tend to look on most media as being free and independent – but is it?
As an example – television in the UK
State television
BBC. The national broadcaster is presented as being independent even though it is financed through public funding. Another potential source of bias is those who control the BBC. The Director General for example, often comes from the ranks of aristocracy (‘Sir’ this and ‘Lord’ that) and has roots in the political system. Other ‘Directors’ may also come from backgrounds that could influence the way the BBC operates, particularly with regard to news broadcasting.
‘Independent’ television.
In the UK the main independent broadcasters are ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, and Sky. Taking a look at the ownership chain of these companies is interesting.
ITV:
ITV channels are owned by ‘ITV plc’ which also own significant shares in other independent broadcaster and franchises. The current chairman is Archie Norman who has previously been employed in government organisations and politics (Conservative party).
Channel 4:
This broadcaster (and various offshoots) is owned by ‘Channel Four Television Corporation’. The Chairman of the company is Baron Terence Burns, who was previously employed by various government committees and organisations. Other members of the management of Channel 4 have also been closely involved with government business.
Channel 5:
Channel 5 is owned by ‘Northern & Shell’ which does or has owned Express Newspapers, Daily Star and various magazines such as ‘OK!’. The company also owns Portland TV which owns the adult TV channels ‘Television X’, ‘Red Hot TV’, and others. The founder of ‘Northern & Shell’ is Richard Desmond, estimated as having a net worth of £950 million.
Sky:
All of the Sky channels are brand names owned by ‘British Sky Broadcasting plc’ (BskyB) which also owns several other media related companies and brands. ‘News Corporation’ owns a significant shareholding in ‘BskyB’, as well as having interests in other media, such as books, newspapers, magazines, radio, music, sport, other TV, internet, and others. Rupert Murdoch is Chairman and CEO who has worldwide interests in TV, publishing and other media. Perhaps Murdoch is one of the most well-known names in media, through both his enterprises and various controversies he and his family have been involved in. It is known that Murdoch has very close and long running affiliations with British politics.
Media in your country
If you take a look at media producers and broadcasters in your country you may find that many of the companies (or media brands) you think are independent are in fact owned by larger corporations with links to government and politics.
What does this mean for us?
The very close and cosy relationship between politics/government and the media means that favours can be done, news edited or adjusted to a particular viewpoint, or even downright deceit and lies broadcast or narrowcast to the population. This can be a highly effective tool for information, disinformation, control, and indoctrination, both overtly and covertly.
So is there truly independent media?
There are other news services and media sources around the world which claim to be independent, such as Russia Today (RT) and PressTV. In the case of Russia Today, they receive funding from the state and their independence has been called into question on occasions. The sane has been expressed about PressTV which is Iranian operated. Even so, they should not be dismissed as alternative media sources for a more balanced look at the news. There are many other news services available on the internet. Really it is up to you to determine how valid the information they present is and how credible they are.
There are many independent news sites on the internet (non-video or audio) that could prove good sources, as there are many independent bloggers – especially in areas of conflict. Again, it may be wise to consider any agendas that may influence the information they give.
Even so, when we consider who controls the mainstream media in our area of the world, are they any more credible than any of the independent sources? Just because information is presented by a government or major broadcaster does not mean it is correct, or that there is not some other agenda at play.
‘The Media’ is an incredibly powerful way to send information and messages to specific groups of people, a particular society, or just about everyone on the planet.
Any organisation that controls mainstream media has incredible power over what people do and how they perceive and think about the world they live in.
The definition of media as defined in the Business Dictionary:
Communication channels through which news, entertainment, education, data, or promotional messages are disseminated. Media includes every broadcasting and narrowcasting medium such as newspapers, magazines, TV, radio, billboards, direct mail, telephone, fax, and internet. Media is the plural of medium and can take a plural or singular verb, depending on the sense intended.
We are surrounded by various forms of media just about wherever we go. From watching TV to travelling in our car, we will encounter some kind of message that someone wants us to take notice of.If you were to think of the media you encounter during your average day, this could encompass TV, radio, internet, email, advertising posters/signs, and even messages in the workplace. A constant bombardment of messages, both conscious and subliminal, enters our brains in an average day.
We may think that we choose to ignore much of the information that enters our conscious mind, but every time we see or hear some form of media our brains register it. So, if we are exposed to something often enough, our subconscious will recognise the message.
With media messages being such an important part of communicating with the masses it is no surprise that a massive amount of money is spent on developing message formats and new ways to deliver messages. Being a ‘PR’ guru in today’s society is a big earner.
Messages can be delivered overtly (such as advertising, news ‘articles’ etc., new programmes) or covertly through television programmes and films (think of the massive market in product placement in film and TV). Press releases, press conferences, spokesmen, spin-doctors, and so on all influence what we see, what we hear, and how we are told we should interpret events.
This is what election campaigns are designed to do. The ‘party’ (or advertiser) want us to think they are the best and do wonderful things for us, and have our best interests at heart. Unfortunately, despite the money spent on these campaigns, very few of the advertisers deliver the promises they make. Perhaps this could be considered false advertising.
A major user of media is government. The government will try and communicate all kinds of messages to us, presenting them as beneficial to our society in some way. Even if the proposal behind the message is formed to control and manipulate us, the PR gurus will get to work trying to deceive us by presenting the subject as being in our best interests. As with political campaigns, the reality of the impact of these messages is often very different from what is promised. A government using media is attempting to control us in some way. Whether this is good for society or not will depend on the motives or agenda of those in power.
If someone controls the distribution of media they may well find that they accumulate a lot of government ‘friends’, because the government want every media message that involves them to portray them in a good (or at least acceptable) light to the public. Bad media coverage can make or break a government, or any other organisation or person.
So what could the government do? Wrap the idea up in pretty paper! They could probably start a PR campaign concentrating on ‘benefits’ that the public are more likely to accept, such as security. The government could state that identity cards would prevent terrorists (using societies fear) from infiltrating society (as if that would stop them). They could state that it would make certain transactions more secure (as if they couldn’t be forged like passports, bank cards etc), or stop unauthorised ‘aliens’ from accessing valuable public services.
Even though the government could have another (often long-term) agenda, the media machine could be used to try and convince the majority of the population that the introduction of identity cards is a good thing. All they need is the majority and the objectors will be forced to accept the idea.
The relationship between government and news media is a close one. Though offering incentives or using ‘friendly’ expert sources the government could tell the population anything they wanted them to believe – and keep telling them until the majority believe it.
As the old saying goes ‘If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it’ – and how true this have proven to be.
So who ‘owns’ or controls the media? This will depend on where you live. For example, in China just about every form of media is strictly controlled by the state., while in Western society we tend to look on most media as being free and independent – but is it?
As an example – television in the UK
State television
BBC. The national broadcaster is presented as being independent even though it is financed through public funding. Another potential source of bias is those who control the BBC. The Director General for example, often comes from the ranks of aristocracy (‘Sir’ this and ‘Lord’ that) and has roots in the political system. Other ‘Directors’ may also come from backgrounds that could influence the way the BBC operates, particularly with regard to news broadcasting.‘Independent’ television.
In the UK the main independent broadcasters are ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, and Sky. Taking a look at the ownership chain of these companies is interesting.
ITV:
Channel 4:
Channel 5:
Sky:
Media in your country
If you take a look at media producers and broadcasters in your country you may find that many of the companies (or media brands) you think are independent are in fact owned by larger corporations with links to government and politics.
What does this mean for us?
The very close and cosy relationship between politics/government and the media means that favours can be done, news edited or adjusted to a particular viewpoint, or even downright deceit and lies broadcast or narrowcast to the population. This can be a highly effective tool for information, disinformation, control, and indoctrination, both overtly and covertly.
So is there truly independent media?
There are many independent news sites on the internet (non-video or audio) that could prove good sources, as there are many independent bloggers – especially in areas of conflict. Again, it may be wise to consider any agendas that may influence the information they give.
Even so, when we consider who controls the mainstream media in our area of the world, are they any more credible than any of the independent sources? Just because information is presented by a government or major broadcaster does not mean it is correct, or that there is not some other agenda at play.
Interesting!! However, not many will read it!! Thats why this corporation hids laws within laws!! They know many wont read it and if they do it will be too late!! Oh well!!!
112th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 5736
To amend the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 to authorize the domestic dissemination of information and material about the United States intended primarily for foreign audiences, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 10, 2012
Mr. Thornberry (for himself and Mr. Smith of Washington) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs
A BILL
To amend the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 to authorize the domestic dissemination of information and material about the United States intended primarily for foreign audiences, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012”.
SEC. 2. DISSEMINATION ABROAD OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE UNITED STATES.
(a) United States Information And Educational Exchange Act Of 1948.—Section 501 of the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1461) is amended to read as follows:
“(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary and the Broadcasting Board of Governors may, upon request and reimbursement of the reasonable costs incurred in fulfilling such a request, make available, in the United States, motion pictures, films, video, audio, and other materials prepared for dissemination abroad or disseminated abroad pursuant to this Act, the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act (22 U.S.C. 1465 et seq.), or the Television Broadcasting to Cuba Act (22 U.S.C. 1465aa et seq.). The Secretary and the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall issue necessary regulations—
“(A) to establish procedures to maintain such material;
“(B) for reimbursement of the reasonable costs incurred in fulfilling requests for such material; and
“(C) to ensure that the persons seeking release of such material have secured and paid for necessary United States rights and licenses.
“(2) With respect to material prepared for dissemination abroad or disseminated abroad before the effective date of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012—
“(A) the Secretary and the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall make available to the Archivist of the United States, for domestic distribution, motion pictures, films, videotapes, and other material 12 years after the initial dissemination of the material abroad; and
“(B) the Archivist shall be the official custodian of the material and shall issue necessary regulations to ensure that persons seeking its release in the United States have secured and paid for necessary United States rights and licenses and that all costs associated with the provision of the material by the Archivist shall be paid by the persons seeking its release, in accordance with paragraph (3).
“(3) The Archivist may charge fees to recover the costs described in paragraph (2), in accordance with section 2116(c) of title 44. Such fees shall be paid into, administered, and expended as part of the National Archives Trust Fund.
“(c) Nothing in this section may be construed to require the Secretary or the Broadcasting Board of Governors to make material disseminated abroad available in any format other than in the format disseminated abroad.”.
(b) Rule Of Construction.—Nothing in this section may be construed to affect the allocation of funds appropriated or otherwise made specifically available for public diplomacy.
(c) Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1986 And 1987.—Section 208 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1986 and 1987 (22 U.S.C. 1461–1a) is amended to read as follows:
“SEC. 208. CLARIFICATION ON DOMESTIC DISTRIBUTION OF PROGRAM MATERIAL.
“(a) In General.—No funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States. This section shall apply only to programs carried out pursuant to the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.), the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act (22 U.S.C. 1465 et seq.), and the Television Broadcasting to Cuba Act (22 U.S.C. 1465aa et seq.). This section shall not prohibit or delay the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors from providing information about its operations, policies, programs, or program material, or making such available, to the media, public, or Congress, in accordance with other applicable law.
“(b) Rule Of Construction.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors from engaging in any medium or form of communication, either directly or indirectly, because a United States domestic audience is or may be thereby exposed to program material, or based on a presumption of such exposure. Such material may be made available within the United States and disseminated, when appropriate, pursuant to sections 502 and 1005 of the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1462 and 1437), except that nothing in this section may be construed to authorize the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors to disseminate within the United States any program material prepared for dissemination abroad on or before the effective date of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012.
“(c) Application.—The provisions of this section shall apply only to the Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors and to no other department or agency of the Federal Government.”.
(d) Conforming Amendments.—The United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 is amended—
(1) in section 502 (22 U.S.C. 1462)—
(A) by inserting “and the Broadcasting Board of Governors” after “Secretary”; and
(B) by inserting “or the Broadcasting Board of Governors” after “Department”; and
(2) in section 1005 (22 U.S.C. 1437), by inserting “and the Broadcasting Board of Governors” after “Secretary” each place it appears.
(e) Effective Date.—This Act shall take effect and apply on the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
112th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 5736
To amend the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 to authorize the domestic dissemination of information and material about the United States intended primarily for foreign audiences, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 10, 2012
Mr. Thornberry (for himself and Mr. Smith of Washington) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs
A BILL
To amend the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 to authorize the domestic dissemination of information and material about the United States intended primarily for foreign audiences, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012”.
SEC. 2. DISSEMINATION ABROAD OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE UNITED STATES.
(a) United States Information And Educational Exchange Act Of 1948.—Section 501 of the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1461) is amended to read as follows:
“GENERAL AUTHORIZATION
“(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary and the Broadcasting Board of Governors may, upon request and reimbursement of the reasonable costs incurred in fulfilling such a request, make available, in the United States, motion pictures, films, video, audio, and other materials prepared for dissemination abroad or disseminated abroad pursuant to this Act, the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act (22 U.S.C. 1465 et seq.), or the Television Broadcasting to Cuba Act (22 U.S.C. 1465aa et seq.). The Secretary and the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall issue necessary regulations—
“(A) to establish procedures to maintain such material;
“(B) for reimbursement of the reasonable costs incurred in fulfilling requests for such material; and
“(C) to ensure that the persons seeking release of such material have secured and paid for necessary United States rights and licenses.
“(2) With respect to material prepared for dissemination abroad or disseminated abroad before the effective date of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012—
“(A) the Secretary and the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall make available to the Archivist of the United States, for domestic distribution, motion pictures, films, videotapes, and other material 12 years after the initial dissemination of the material abroad; and
“(B) the Archivist shall be the official custodian of the material and shall issue necessary regulations to ensure that persons seeking its release in the United States have secured and paid for necessary United States rights and licenses and that all costs associated with the provision of the material by the Archivist shall be paid by the persons seeking its release, in accordance with paragraph (3).
“(3) The Archivist may charge fees to recover the costs described in paragraph (2), in accordance with section 2116(c) of title 44. Such fees shall be paid into, administered, and expended as part of the National Archives Trust Fund.
“(c) Nothing in this section may be construed to require the Secretary or the Broadcasting Board of Governors to make material disseminated abroad available in any format other than in the format disseminated abroad.”.
(b) Rule Of Construction.—Nothing in this section may be construed to affect the allocation of funds appropriated or otherwise made specifically available for public diplomacy.
(c) Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1986 And 1987.—Section 208 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1986 and 1987 (22 U.S.C. 1461–1a) is amended to read as follows:
“SEC. 208. CLARIFICATION ON DOMESTIC DISTRIBUTION OF PROGRAM MATERIAL.
“(a) In General.—No funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States. This section shall apply only to programs carried out pursuant to the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.), the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act (22 U.S.C. 1465 et seq.), and the Television Broadcasting to Cuba Act (22 U.S.C. 1465aa et seq.). This section shall not prohibit or delay the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors from providing information about its operations, policies, programs, or program material, or making such available, to the media, public, or Congress, in accordance with other applicable law.
“(b) Rule Of Construction.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors from engaging in any medium or form of communication, either directly or indirectly, because a United States domestic audience is or may be thereby exposed to program material, or based on a presumption of such exposure. Such material may be made available within the United States and disseminated, when appropriate, pursuant to sections 502 and 1005 of the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1462 and 1437), except that nothing in this section may be construed to authorize the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors to disseminate within the United States any program material prepared for dissemination abroad on or before the effective date of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012.
“(c) Application.—The provisions of this section shall apply only to the Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors and to no other department or agency of the Federal Government.”.
(d) Conforming Amendments.—The United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 is amended—
(1) in section 502 (22 U.S.C. 1462)—
(A) by inserting “and the Broadcasting Board of Governors” after “Secretary”; and
(B) by inserting “or the Broadcasting Board of Governors” after “Department”; and
(2) in section 1005 (22 U.S.C. 1437), by inserting “and the Broadcasting Board of Governors” after “Secretary” each place it appears.
(e) Effective Date.—This Act shall take effect and apply on the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Yes, yes and yes. I checked the stations they showed, all Sinclair. For those that want more detail, John Oliver already covered this topic last July...
Media conglomerates: The Big 6
These six media companies are known as The Big 6.
While independent media outlets still exist (and there are a lot of them), the major outlets are almost all owned by these six conglomerates.
To be clear, "media" in this context does not refer just to news outlets — it refers to any medium that controls the distribution of information.
So here, "media" includes 24-hour news stations, newspapers, publishing houses, Internet utilities, and even video game developers.
With that in mind, let's take a look at each of The Big 6, who control them, and what they own.
The 6 Companies That Own (almost) All Media
Media Conglomerate #1: National Amusements
Unless you're directly involved in business and / or entertainment, you've probably never heard of National Amusements before.
The company owns movie theaters throughout the world — about 950 total — but it owns much more than just movie theaters.
NA's huge collection of properties is staggering. Whether they own a company entirely, possess majority shares, or even own minority voting shares, the scope of NA's reach is enormous for a company that's known less than its subsidiaries.
To start our look at NA, let's check out one of the biggest names in modern business — Sumner Redstone.
Head: Sumner Redstone
Sumner Redstone is current owner of National Amusements and all of its properties. While his daughter Shari has the title of President, Sumner Redstone retains most of the control over the company.
NA was first founded by Sumner Redstone's father Michael Redstone, making National Amusements one of the most powerful and successful corporate dynasties in the United States.
None of the Redstones publish their salaries. After all, National Amusements is a private company.
However, finance experts can guess at Sumner Redstone's overall net worth.
His net worth refers to the total financial value of what Sumner Redstone owns, minus any outstanding debts.
As he nears his 94th birthday in 2017, Sumner Redstone (and his estate) is worth an estimated $4.6 billion, according to Forbes.
While a decent amount of that value comes from his stake in National Amusements, much more of it comes from the companies that he owns.
TV and Film Assets
The most famous assets of National Amusements are almost all Viacom and CBS properties.
Combined, they make up the lion's share of NA's television and film acquisitions.
Still, that's only a portion of what NA owns.
Print Assets
National Amusements has a modest collection of print publishers, but they're pretty well-known.
The most well-known is Simon and Schuster, which National Amusements acquired when it purchased Viacom in 1999.
Video Game Assets
Along with other entertainment assets, National Amusements controls CBS Games.
Since its acquisition, CBS Games has rebranded to CBS Interactive, which now controls well-known gaming websites that we'll look at next.
Internet Assets
With CBS Interactive, National Amusements controls giant chunks of the video game news and sports news industries.
These brands include GameSpot, metacritic, c|net, and 247-Sports.
Media Conglomerate #2: Disney
Disney is probably the most well-known media name on this list.
The company has a hand in just about every medium in the world from children's cinema to sports.
When it comes to television and film, there's a good chance you're watching something owned by the Disney company — even if it doesn't have Disney's name.
Why?
They own so, so much.
Let's start with the company's leader.
Head: Bob Iger
Disney announced Bob Iger as CEO on March 13, 2005, following the departure of Michael Eisner.
Since then, Iger has run a campaign of mergers and acquisitions to expand Disney into an even greater media powerhouse, especially with the acquisition of Marvel ($4 billion) and Lucasfilm ($4 billion).
His published salary is $44.9 million. That breaks down to:
Why does Iger make so much money?
He (technically) oversees all of the following companies.
TV and Film Assets
First, let's look at the bread and butter of Disney — television and film.
Considering they have theme parks built to their entertainment assets, it's clear that Disney is best known for its TV and film properties.
There are so many different companies that you really just have to see it for yourself.
Print Assets
Disney's print assets are a mix of proprietary publishers, Lucasfilm acquisitions, and Marvel properties.
The mix gives Disney a controlling interest in massive publishing niches, especially comic books and science fiction novels.
Disney also owns ESPN, which has its own publishing arm for all things sports.
Video Game Assets
Finally, Disney owns a few video game assets.
They're not huge, but they're enough to keep Disney mildly competitive and up-to-date in the video game industry (especially mobile gaming).
GameStar, a subsidiary of Disney Interactive Studios, is one of the best-known video game developers bought by Disney.
Media Conglomerate #3: TimeWarner
At the time of publication (11/7/16), it's possible that ATandT will soon buy TimeWarner for around $80 billion.
If that happens, ATandT will acquire everything below and more.
In the meantime, let's take a more in-depth look at TimeWarner and what it owns.
Head: Jeff Bewkes
Jeff Bewkes is the CEO of TimeWarner. He makes $32.5 million per year.
That works out to:
So why does one American earn the make as much money as Micronesia in a year?
As the head of TimeWarner, he's responsible for all of the following companies.
TV and Film Assets
TimeWarner owns an incredible amount of television and film properties.
The most famous is probably Warner Brothers Animation Studios, which owns properties like Looney Tunes.
Along with that, TimeWarner has joint ventures in The CW and Hulu, along with ultra-niche TV programming for medical waiting rooms.
TimeWarner has also played a big role in comic book adaptations into movies, most notably with Batman.
Last, TimeWarner's HBO branch achieved global renown with its runaway fantasy drama Game of Thrones, an adaptation of George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire.
Needless to say, TimeWarner's television and film branches — including joint ventures like Hulu and CW — are doing pretty well these days.
Print Assets
On top of its incredible TV and movies, TimeWarner also controls several big-name print assets, including TIME (obviously).
Investments
TimeWarner has one of the most diverse investment portfolios of any media company.
Their investments act as controlling interests in lots of companies, some of which aren't related to media.
But no matter what they are, each investment gives TimeWarner a stronger foothold in media.
Video Game Assets
As the owner of DC Comics, Looney Tunes, and tons of other fictional characters, it makes sense that TimeWarner owns a list of accomplished video game studios.
The most well-known is probably NetherRealm, which owns and publishes the controversial (and popular) Mortal Kombat series.
They also own Rocksteady, which is responsible for many of the latest Batman games.
Music Assets
TimeWarner doesn't own a lot in music, but they have enough to ensure musical support for their other properties.
WaterTower Music might be the better-known business of the two enterprises, but Warner Music Group is still an essential part of the TimeWarner brand.
Internet Assets
Finally, TimeWarner is the first company on our list that also acts as an Internet service provider.
TimeWarner Cable is a major ISP in the United States, and it regularly competes with Comcast.
While its reputation differs from person to person, TimeWarner Cable is wildly profitable, and it's become a major pillar of TimeWarner's success.
Media Conglomerate #4: Comcast
Comcast is one of the few remaining Internet service providers in the United States. They also provide cable television and phone services to residential and business customers.
In 2013, Comcast expanded its reach into entertainment by purchasing NBC and pretty much all of its properties.
While most people know NBC as just a television station, it also has major stakes in media companies around the world.
That makes Comcast a major contender in global media, especially in the United States.
Head: Brian L. Roberts
Brian L. Roberts became President of Comcast in 1990, back when the company only earned $657 million in annual revenue.
That may sound like a ridiculous figure to use with the term "only," but under Roberts' leadership, the company now earns $74.5 billion annually.
As a result, Roberts is compensated well. He earns $40.8 million per year, which works out to:
That salary may be exclusive to Comcast's utilities subscriptions. But that's not the only way the ISP megalith earns money.
TV and Film Assets
With the acquisition of NBC, Comcast expanded its repertoire of TV and film assets many times over.
TV programming from NBC, cinema from Universal Pictures, and next-gen publishers like AwesomenessTV are all integral to Comcast's growth and sustainability over the next few decades.
Even their religious niche branch — Big Idea — plays an important part in Comcast's continued success and increased competitiveness in the media world.
Internet Assets
Most famously, Comcast is known as an Internet provider.
It's a direct competitor to TimeWarner Cable, and it's the primary (or only) ISP in dozens of regions in the United States.
Ventures
Last, Comcast has a laundry list of ventures that it launched (or helped launch).
This gives Comcast an interest in dozens of seemingly-unrelated companies as an investor and potentially a future shareholder for the most successful branches.
Media Conglomerate #5: News Corp
News Corp is the media conglomerate best known for its line of Fox companies.
Those include Fox News, FX, and pretty much every other company with the name "Fox" in it.
The company generated more than $33 billion in 2012, and it controls a huge number of print products compared to other media conglomerates.
To get a better grasp of News Corp, let's check out their CEO Rupert Murdoch.
Head: Rupert Murdoch
While News Corp underwent a split in 2013, Rupert Murdoch remains the head of most of News Corp's current assets.
With a hand in television, film, music, and print, Murdoch is perhaps the most successful Australian entrepreneur to build an international empire.
As a result, Murdoch earns something to the tune of $22.3 million per year, which is roughly:
So what does Murdoch and his world-famous News Corp control?
TV and Film Assets
News Corp owns the Fox brand, which means they control a borderline-unreasonable amount of media outlets via television and film.
There's not much more to say about it — News Corp just owns a lot of outlets.
Music Assets
On top of TV and film, News Corp also owns a handful of music assets.
It's not News Corps's biggest branch, but it works for their needs, which is typically supporting the TV and film divisions with music (Fox Music).
Wireless Group PLC, on the other hand, is an Irish radio broadcast corporation — one of the biggest in the country.
Print Assets
News Corps's foundational asset is print.
The company owns hundreds of national, regional, and local newspapers around the world.
The most famous is probably the Wall Street Journal, which fits the mold of News Corps's focus on financial information.
News Corp also owns HarperCollins, which owns the Christian-niche Zondervan, making News Corp a major player in retail books as well.
Media Conglomerate #6: Sony
Sony is one of the oldest companies on this list since it was founded in 1946.
It also has one of the most recent CEO changes.
In 2012, Kazuo Hirai became CEO of the entire corporation, which might be the most well-known electronics brand on the planet.
But Sony is so much more than an electronics company. They have interests across almost all media industries, and Hirai has helped keep the company current and competitive.
Head: Kazuo Hirai
"Kaz" Hirai started work at Sony Music Entertainment Japan in 1984, and he's been with the company ever since.
He climbed Sony's corporate ladder quickly, eventually culminating with his CEO appointment on April 1, 2012.
Since then, Sony has had some problems, but it's also had some successes. Most notably, Sony recently posted a 666% increase in profit as it launched a turnaround plan. The announcement came almost exactly four years after Hirai become CEO.
At 55, Hirai is one of the youngest leaders of a global conglomerate. But still, he clearly knows what he's doing.
For his vision, Hirai earns about $4.9 million every year.
Compared to the other CEOs and presidents on this list, that's pretty modest. But it's still life-changing money for 99% of the world.
Hirai's salary breaks down to:
Let's check out the scope of Hirai's responsibilities.
TV and Film Assets
Sony has a hand in dozens of television and cinema companies. Sony works in production, distribution, and just about every other phase of the television and film processes.
So it makes sense that Sony owns media outlets in lots of different countries, most notably Japan and the United States.
Music Assets
Sony's music arm is well-known throughout the world.
Their music arms work in both support for their television and film production branches, but they also publish music from artists.
Internet Assets
So-net is Sony's Internet service branch. It's only available in Japan, and offers double speeds of Google Fiber for less money.
That makes So-net one of the most generous ISPs in the world in terms of speed.
Non-Media Assets
Sony also owns non-media assets, including a bank, financial holdings, and a creative suite.
These non-media assets don't publish information, but they certainly play a major role in Sony's financial success.
Investments
Last, Sony has a portfolio of investments, much like other media companies on this list.
As with our other companies, Sony's investments give it control over more areas of the media industry without attempting risky projects themselves.
If it fails, Sony only loses a fraction of what they would lose if they had attempted a project themselves.
If it succeeds, Sony has an interest — even a controlling interest — in how the new company develops.
Total Value of Media's Big 6: $430 Billion
For perspective, if these six companies were a country, they would be the 26th wealthiest country in the world by GDP between Poland ($467 billion) and Nigeria ($415 billion).
That's enough money to give every American $1348.39.
These companies are probably here to stay for the next decades — or even centuries.
The only way they'll disappear is if they're bought by another megalithic company or run out of business by a major market shakeup that leaves them no time to adapt.
This phenomenon is called "too big to fail," and it's often applied to worldwide banks like Citi or Bank of America.
But it also applies here. These companies are profit engines that keep growing.
And when they can't grow, they buy the smaller businesses that do.
These six media companies are known as The Big 6.
While independent media outlets still exist (and there are a lot of them), the major outlets are almost all owned by these six conglomerates.
To be clear, "media" in this context does not refer just to news outlets — it refers to any medium that controls the distribution of information.
So here, "media" includes 24-hour news stations, newspapers, publishing houses, Internet utilities, and even video game developers.
With that in mind, let's take a look at each of The Big 6, who control them, and what they own.
The 6 Companies That Own (almost) All Media
Media Conglomerate #1: National Amusements
Unless you're directly involved in business and / or entertainment, you've probably never heard of National Amusements before.
The company owns movie theaters throughout the world — about 950 total — but it owns much more than just movie theaters.
NA's huge collection of properties is staggering. Whether they own a company entirely, possess majority shares, or even own minority voting shares, the scope of NA's reach is enormous for a company that's known less than its subsidiaries.
To start our look at NA, let's check out one of the biggest names in modern business — Sumner Redstone.
Head: Sumner Redstone
Sumner Redstone is current owner of National Amusements and all of its properties. While his daughter Shari has the title of President, Sumner Redstone retains most of the control over the company.
NA was first founded by Sumner Redstone's father Michael Redstone, making National Amusements one of the most powerful and successful corporate dynasties in the United States.
None of the Redstones publish their salaries. After all, National Amusements is a private company.
However, finance experts can guess at Sumner Redstone's overall net worth.
His net worth refers to the total financial value of what Sumner Redstone owns, minus any outstanding debts.
As he nears his 94th birthday in 2017, Sumner Redstone (and his estate) is worth an estimated $4.6 billion, according to Forbes.
While a decent amount of that value comes from his stake in National Amusements, much more of it comes from the companies that he owns.
TV and Film Assets
The most famous assets of National Amusements are almost all Viacom and CBS properties.
Combined, they make up the lion's share of NA's television and film acquisitions.
Still, that's only a portion of what NA owns.
Print Assets
National Amusements has a modest collection of print publishers, but they're pretty well-known.
The most well-known is Simon and Schuster, which National Amusements acquired when it purchased Viacom in 1999.
Video Game Assets
Along with other entertainment assets, National Amusements controls CBS Games.
Since its acquisition, CBS Games has rebranded to CBS Interactive, which now controls well-known gaming websites that we'll look at next.
Internet Assets
With CBS Interactive, National Amusements controls giant chunks of the video game news and sports news industries.
These brands include GameSpot, metacritic, c|net, and 247-Sports.
Media Conglomerate #2: Disney
Disney is probably the most well-known media name on this list.
The company has a hand in just about every medium in the world from children's cinema to sports.
When it comes to television and film, there's a good chance you're watching something owned by the Disney company — even if it doesn't have Disney's name.
Why?
They own so, so much.
Let's start with the company's leader.
Head: Bob Iger
Disney announced Bob Iger as CEO on March 13, 2005, following the departure of Michael Eisner.
Since then, Iger has run a campaign of mergers and acquisitions to expand Disney into an even greater media powerhouse, especially with the acquisition of Marvel ($4 billion) and Lucasfilm ($4 billion).
His published salary is $44.9 million. That breaks down to:
- $1.73 million per paycheck
- $172,692.32 per day
- $21,586.54 per hour
Why does Iger make so much money?
He (technically) oversees all of the following companies.
TV and Film Assets
First, let's look at the bread and butter of Disney — television and film.
Considering they have theme parks built to their entertainment assets, it's clear that Disney is best known for its TV and film properties.
There are so many different companies that you really just have to see it for yourself.
Print Assets
Disney's print assets are a mix of proprietary publishers, Lucasfilm acquisitions, and Marvel properties.
The mix gives Disney a controlling interest in massive publishing niches, especially comic books and science fiction novels.
Disney also owns ESPN, which has its own publishing arm for all things sports.
Video Game Assets
Finally, Disney owns a few video game assets.
They're not huge, but they're enough to keep Disney mildly competitive and up-to-date in the video game industry (especially mobile gaming).
GameStar, a subsidiary of Disney Interactive Studios, is one of the best-known video game developers bought by Disney.
Media Conglomerate #3: TimeWarner
At the time of publication (11/7/16), it's possible that ATandT will soon buy TimeWarner for around $80 billion.
If that happens, ATandT will acquire everything below and more.
In the meantime, let's take a more in-depth look at TimeWarner and what it owns.
Head: Jeff Bewkes
Jeff Bewkes is the CEO of TimeWarner. He makes $32.5 million per year.
That works out to:
- $1.25 million per paycheck
- $125,000 per work day
- $15,625 per hour
So why does one American earn the make as much money as Micronesia in a year?
As the head of TimeWarner, he's responsible for all of the following companies.
TV and Film Assets
TimeWarner owns an incredible amount of television and film properties.
The most famous is probably Warner Brothers Animation Studios, which owns properties like Looney Tunes.
Along with that, TimeWarner has joint ventures in The CW and Hulu, along with ultra-niche TV programming for medical waiting rooms.
TimeWarner has also played a big role in comic book adaptations into movies, most notably with Batman.
Last, TimeWarner's HBO branch achieved global renown with its runaway fantasy drama Game of Thrones, an adaptation of George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire.
Needless to say, TimeWarner's television and film branches — including joint ventures like Hulu and CW — are doing pretty well these days.
Print Assets
On top of its incredible TV and movies, TimeWarner also controls several big-name print assets, including TIME (obviously).
Investments
TimeWarner has one of the most diverse investment portfolios of any media company.
Their investments act as controlling interests in lots of companies, some of which aren't related to media.
But no matter what they are, each investment gives TimeWarner a stronger foothold in media.
Video Game Assets
As the owner of DC Comics, Looney Tunes, and tons of other fictional characters, it makes sense that TimeWarner owns a list of accomplished video game studios.
The most well-known is probably NetherRealm, which owns and publishes the controversial (and popular) Mortal Kombat series.
They also own Rocksteady, which is responsible for many of the latest Batman games.
Music Assets
TimeWarner doesn't own a lot in music, but they have enough to ensure musical support for their other properties.
WaterTower Music might be the better-known business of the two enterprises, but Warner Music Group is still an essential part of the TimeWarner brand.
Internet Assets
Finally, TimeWarner is the first company on our list that also acts as an Internet service provider.
TimeWarner Cable is a major ISP in the United States, and it regularly competes with Comcast.
While its reputation differs from person to person, TimeWarner Cable is wildly profitable, and it's become a major pillar of TimeWarner's success.
Media Conglomerate #4: Comcast
Comcast is one of the few remaining Internet service providers in the United States. They also provide cable television and phone services to residential and business customers.
In 2013, Comcast expanded its reach into entertainment by purchasing NBC and pretty much all of its properties.
While most people know NBC as just a television station, it also has major stakes in media companies around the world.
That makes Comcast a major contender in global media, especially in the United States.
Head: Brian L. Roberts
Brian L. Roberts became President of Comcast in 1990, back when the company only earned $657 million in annual revenue.
That may sound like a ridiculous figure to use with the term "only," but under Roberts' leadership, the company now earns $74.5 billion annually.
As a result, Roberts is compensated well. He earns $40.8 million per year, which works out to:
- $1.57 million per paycheck
- $156,923.04 per work day
- $19,615.38 per hour
That salary may be exclusive to Comcast's utilities subscriptions. But that's not the only way the ISP megalith earns money.
TV and Film Assets
With the acquisition of NBC, Comcast expanded its repertoire of TV and film assets many times over.
TV programming from NBC, cinema from Universal Pictures, and next-gen publishers like AwesomenessTV are all integral to Comcast's growth and sustainability over the next few decades.
Even their religious niche branch — Big Idea — plays an important part in Comcast's continued success and increased competitiveness in the media world.
Internet Assets
Most famously, Comcast is known as an Internet provider.
It's a direct competitor to TimeWarner Cable, and it's the primary (or only) ISP in dozens of regions in the United States.
Ventures
Last, Comcast has a laundry list of ventures that it launched (or helped launch).
This gives Comcast an interest in dozens of seemingly-unrelated companies as an investor and potentially a future shareholder for the most successful branches.
Media Conglomerate #5: News Corp
News Corp is the media conglomerate best known for its line of Fox companies.
Those include Fox News, FX, and pretty much every other company with the name "Fox" in it.
The company generated more than $33 billion in 2012, and it controls a huge number of print products compared to other media conglomerates.
To get a better grasp of News Corp, let's check out their CEO Rupert Murdoch.
Head: Rupert Murdoch
While News Corp underwent a split in 2013, Rupert Murdoch remains the head of most of News Corp's current assets.
With a hand in television, film, music, and print, Murdoch is perhaps the most successful Australian entrepreneur to build an international empire.
As a result, Murdoch earns something to the tune of $22.3 million per year, which is roughly:
- $857,692 per paycheck
- $85,769.20 per work day
- $10,721.15 per hour
So what does Murdoch and his world-famous News Corp control?
TV and Film Assets
News Corp owns the Fox brand, which means they control a borderline-unreasonable amount of media outlets via television and film.
There's not much more to say about it — News Corp just owns a lot of outlets.
Music Assets
On top of TV and film, News Corp also owns a handful of music assets.
It's not News Corps's biggest branch, but it works for their needs, which is typically supporting the TV and film divisions with music (Fox Music).
Wireless Group PLC, on the other hand, is an Irish radio broadcast corporation — one of the biggest in the country.
Print Assets
News Corps's foundational asset is print.
The company owns hundreds of national, regional, and local newspapers around the world.
The most famous is probably the Wall Street Journal, which fits the mold of News Corps's focus on financial information.
News Corp also owns HarperCollins, which owns the Christian-niche Zondervan, making News Corp a major player in retail books as well.
Media Conglomerate #6: Sony
Sony is one of the oldest companies on this list since it was founded in 1946.
It also has one of the most recent CEO changes.
In 2012, Kazuo Hirai became CEO of the entire corporation, which might be the most well-known electronics brand on the planet.
But Sony is so much more than an electronics company. They have interests across almost all media industries, and Hirai has helped keep the company current and competitive.
Head: Kazuo Hirai
"Kaz" Hirai started work at Sony Music Entertainment Japan in 1984, and he's been with the company ever since.
He climbed Sony's corporate ladder quickly, eventually culminating with his CEO appointment on April 1, 2012.
Since then, Sony has had some problems, but it's also had some successes. Most notably, Sony recently posted a 666% increase in profit as it launched a turnaround plan. The announcement came almost exactly four years after Hirai become CEO.
At 55, Hirai is one of the youngest leaders of a global conglomerate. But still, he clearly knows what he's doing.
For his vision, Hirai earns about $4.9 million every year.
Compared to the other CEOs and presidents on this list, that's pretty modest. But it's still life-changing money for 99% of the world.
Hirai's salary breaks down to:
- $161,540.80 per paycheck
- $16,154.08 per work day
- $2019.23 per hour
Let's check out the scope of Hirai's responsibilities.
TV and Film Assets
Sony has a hand in dozens of television and cinema companies. Sony works in production, distribution, and just about every other phase of the television and film processes.
So it makes sense that Sony owns media outlets in lots of different countries, most notably Japan and the United States.
Music Assets
Sony's music arm is well-known throughout the world.
Their music arms work in both support for their television and film production branches, but they also publish music from artists.
Internet Assets
So-net is Sony's Internet service branch. It's only available in Japan, and offers double speeds of Google Fiber for less money.
That makes So-net one of the most generous ISPs in the world in terms of speed.
Non-Media Assets
Sony also owns non-media assets, including a bank, financial holdings, and a creative suite.
These non-media assets don't publish information, but they certainly play a major role in Sony's financial success.
Investments
Last, Sony has a portfolio of investments, much like other media companies on this list.
As with our other companies, Sony's investments give it control over more areas of the media industry without attempting risky projects themselves.
If it fails, Sony only loses a fraction of what they would lose if they had attempted a project themselves.
If it succeeds, Sony has an interest — even a controlling interest — in how the new company develops.
Total Value of Media's Big 6: $430 Billion
For perspective, if these six companies were a country, they would be the 26th wealthiest country in the world by GDP between Poland ($467 billion) and Nigeria ($415 billion).
That's enough money to give every American $1348.39.
These companies are probably here to stay for the next decades — or even centuries.
The only way they'll disappear is if they're bought by another megalithic company or run out of business by a major market shakeup that leaves them no time to adapt.
This phenomenon is called "too big to fail," and it's often applied to worldwide banks like Citi or Bank of America.
But it also applies here. These companies are profit engines that keep growing.
And when they can't grow, they buy the smaller businesses that do.
This is from the GAO, the mainstream media has been pushing false news for decades!! You have to use critical thinking and question everything that come out your tel li vision!! If you dont question whats coming out your television, you open yourself too alot of fake news that looks real.. But the choice is yours!!!
Whenever you hit the power button on your tvset, you are inviting the killer into your house!!
B-304272, PREPACKAGED NEWS STORIES, February 17, 2005
[1] In the course of our work, we learned that prepackaged news stories have become common tools of the public relations industry, and that some federal agencies are adopting them as well. The purpose of this letter is to remind agencies of the constraints imposed by the publicity or propaganda prohibition on the use of prepackaged news stories and to advise vigilance to assure that agencies' activities comply with the prohibition. Importantly, prepackaged news stories can be utilized without violating the law, so long as there is clear disclosure to the television viewing audience that this material was prepared by or in cooperation with the government department or agency.
[3]
While agencies generally have the right to disseminate information about their policies and activities, agencies may not use appropriated funds to produce or distribute prepackaged news stories intended to be viewed by television audiences that conceal or do not clearly identify for the television viewing audience that the agency was the source of those materials. It is not enough that the contents of an agency's communication may be unobjectionable. Neither is it enough for an agency to identify itself to the broadcasting organization as the source of the prepackaged news story.
As we stated in B-302710, "In a modest but meaningful way, the publicity or propaganda restriction helps to mark the boundary between an agency making information available to the public and agencies creating news reports unbeknownst to the receiving audience." See also B-303495, Jan.4, 2005, n.29. This is not the only marker Congress has enacted to delineate the boundaries between the government and the free American press. See, e.g., 22U.S.C. 1461, 1461-1a (restricting the domestic dissemination of news reports originally created by the government for broadcast abroad). Statutory limits on the domestic dissemination of U.S. government-produced news reports reflect concern that allowing the government to produce domestic news broadcasts would infringe upon the freedom of the press and constitute (or at least give the appearanceof) an attempt to control public opinion. B118654-O.M., Apr.17,1979.
Agency officials should scrutinize any proposed prepackaged news stories to ensure appropriate disclosures. Should you or your staff have questions concerning the application of these principles in particular cases, our Office of General Counsel is available to assist on an informal consultative basis or, as necessary, on a formal decision basis. Please contact Susan A. Poling, Managing Associate General Counsel, at 202-512-2667, or Thomas H. Armstrong, Assistant General Counsel, at 202-512-8257.
David M. Walker
Comptroller General
of the United States
Whenever you hit the power button on your tvset, you are inviting the killer into your house!!
B-304272, PREPACKAGED NEWS STORIES, February 17, 2005
[1] In the course of our work, we learned that prepackaged news stories have become common tools of the public relations industry, and that some federal agencies are adopting them as well. The purpose of this letter is to remind agencies of the constraints imposed by the publicity or propaganda prohibition on the use of prepackaged news stories and to advise vigilance to assure that agencies' activities comply with the prohibition. Importantly, prepackaged news stories can be utilized without violating the law, so long as there is clear disclosure to the television viewing audience that this material was prepared by or in cooperation with the government department or agency.
[3]
While agencies generally have the right to disseminate information about their policies and activities, agencies may not use appropriated funds to produce or distribute prepackaged news stories intended to be viewed by television audiences that conceal or do not clearly identify for the television viewing audience that the agency was the source of those materials. It is not enough that the contents of an agency's communication may be unobjectionable. Neither is it enough for an agency to identify itself to the broadcasting organization as the source of the prepackaged news story.
As we stated in B-302710, "In a modest but meaningful way, the publicity or propaganda restriction helps to mark the boundary between an agency making information available to the public and agencies creating news reports unbeknownst to the receiving audience." See also B-303495, Jan.4, 2005, n.29. This is not the only marker Congress has enacted to delineate the boundaries between the government and the free American press. See, e.g., 22U.S.C. 1461, 1461-1a (restricting the domestic dissemination of news reports originally created by the government for broadcast abroad). Statutory limits on the domestic dissemination of U.S. government-produced news reports reflect concern that allowing the government to produce domestic news broadcasts would infringe upon the freedom of the press and constitute (or at least give the appearanceof) an attempt to control public opinion. B118654-O.M., Apr.17,1979.
Agency officials should scrutinize any proposed prepackaged news stories to ensure appropriate disclosures. Should you or your staff have questions concerning the application of these principles in particular cases, our Office of General Counsel is available to assist on an informal consultative basis or, as necessary, on a formal decision basis. Please contact Susan A. Poling, Managing Associate General Counsel, at 202-512-2667, or Thomas H. Armstrong, Assistant General Counsel, at 202-512-8257.
David M. Walker
Comptroller General
of the United States
I shake my head when I hear my people talkin bout "OUR" democracy...
It does explain a lot tho.
It does explain a lot tho.