• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

George Soros buying radio stations

TheBigA said:
But they have the same right to that presentation as the AM talk stations have to theirs.
Click to expand...
Of course they do. Nobody is arguing that. I am just stating that the perception of conservatives is that those networks lean decidedly to the Blue side.
TheBigA said:
Late night shows have always made jokes about the government.
Click to expand...
Yes, and when it was Steve Allen and Johnny Carson, they were "equal opportunity humorists" and poked fun at everyone. Not today.
TheBigA said:
So you're saying the news departments base their coverage on late night talk?
Click to expand...
No, I never said anything of the sort. Go back and read again. I said that many conservatives base their impression of the political leaning of those three networks based on the content of the late-night talk shows which are highly anti-conservative.
TheBigA said:
Are you insane?
Click to expand...
No, and that is an offensive statement. You have no grounds to say that just because I am of a different political persuasion than you.
TheBigA said:
These are two different divisions, run by different presidents, who are appealing to two different sales demographics. This is BUSINESS, not politics. Try to understand that there is more to this world than politics.
Click to expand...
And I am talking about perceptions.

TelevisaUnivision did a number of studies and found that its news image, created by just one person, was giving the perception that the network was further to the left than the Mexican owners wanted it to be. So they removed the news anchor.
TheBigA said:
It doesn't matter what it was established as.
Click to expand...
Then why did you detail its establishment (incorrectly, to boot)?
TheBigA said:
If Murdoch wanted to force right wing politics on his TV stations, he could do it. But he KNOWS it would be a bad business decision.
Click to expand...
Since the TV network has no news shows, that is just an assumption. There has not been a rumor of The Fox Network expanding into new areas or adding network hours for about two decades.
TheBigA said:
Just as Soros knows forcing left wing talk on his radio stations would be a bad BUSINESS decision.
Click to expand...
They are not "his stations". His investment firms and a number of others bought the Audacy debt and converted it into shares.
TheBigA said:
That's why he's kept his ideology off his OTA stations. Fox had a late night show with Joan Rivers. Her comedy was just like the other networks. It failed. They never tried it again.
Click to expand...
As I said, in the last two decades they have stayed out of anything more than the couple of prime time hours and some sports. And the Rivers show was just like all the others at the time, and made fun of everyone, every party, every sports team, every celebrity.
TheBigA said:
You said earlier that the FCC stays out of content. That changed in January.
Click to expand...
They have asked about it, but have they done anything decisive? They seem to be probing, but not really exceeding their limitations.
 
davideduardo said:
I am just stating that the perception of conservatives is that those networks lean decidedly to the Blue side.
Click to expand...

It's not just perceptions of conservatives. It's now government policy to rid TV of any liberals, as stated by the president. He's working on Kimmel next. That's what he said. He speaks, and his minions follow. This president is ridding the government of democrats. He's firing them, and using the courts to enforce it. This is no longer a government of the people and by the people. It's a government that works only for one man.

davideduardo said:
TelevisaUnivision did a number of studies and found that its news image, created by just one person, was giving the perception that the network was further to the left than the Mexican owners wanted it to be. So they removed the news anchor.
Click to expand...

That's a terrible decision. They shouldn't program to what the owners want. You would never program a radio station based on your personal taste. Why is it OK to program a newscast based on the politics of the owner? Murdoch has the exact same opportunity, and he's smart enough NOT to do it. Same with Soros. This is why the right thinks Soros will kill conservative talk at Audacy. But he would never do that. It doesn't matter, because if the FCC decides to change foreign ownership rules. Univision will have to change. They're thinking about it right now.

davideduardo said:
They are not "his stations". His investment firms and a number of others bought the Audacy debt and converted it into shares.
Click to expand...

Would you please explain that to the chairman of the FCC? Because he has talked himself into thinking they are. And he's taking action based on that wrong idea.

davideduardo said:
They have asked about it, but have they done anything decisive? They seem to be probing, but not really exceeding their limitations.
Click to expand...

It's only been 6 months, and for some of that time, they didn't have a quorum. Also Simington wasn't as much of an ideolog as Carr. Now they have enough power to make changes. Get ready. They've already said what they plan to do.
 
TheBigA said:
That's a terrible decision. They shouldn't program to what the owners want. You would never program a radio station based on your personal taste. Why is it OK to program a newscast based on the politics of the owner?
Click to expand...
The position at Televisa was that the anchor was flavoring the newscasts with commentary and "biased language". The newscaster said that "new journalism" required the newsman to interpret the news for the viewers. Televisa said that they did not agree, as news should be interpreted by the viewer.

Here is one synopsis of that newscaster's "departure":

Some sources have suggested that the changing media landscape and the merger between Televisa and Univision could have played a role in the decision. Others highlight the possible shift in Univision's approach to covering certain political topics, noting that a Trump interviewer at Univision failed to press him on clearly false claims about immigration policy like the border wall, and another anchor left the network shortly after in dismay. Ramos himself had been a vocal critic of former President Trump and had a contentious history with him, famously being ejected from a press conference in 2015 after challenging Trump's immigration policies. However, these are speculative connections and the official reason for his departure remains a "mutual agreement".
TheBigA said:
Murdoch has the exact same opportunity, and he's smart enough NOT to do it. Same with Soros. This is why the right thinks Soros will kill conservative talk at Audacy. But he would never do that. It doesn't matter, because if the FCC decides to change foreign ownership rules. Univision will have to change. They're thinking about it right now.
Click to expand...
No, they are not. The ownership rules would be in full compliance; several of the principal shareholders of TelevisaUnivision are U.S. citizens.
TheBigA said:
Would you please explain that to the chairman of the FCC? Because he has talked himself into thinking they are. And he's taking action based on that wrong idea.
Click to expand...
OK, I agree, he is stupid and misguided. But that does not affect what we are discussing which is the political leaning of the major networks.
TheBigA said:
It's only been 6 months, and for some of that time, they didn't have a quorum. Now they have enough power to make changes. Get ready. They've already said what they plan to do.
Click to expand...
And I don't have a crystal ball to predict what they can legally do.
 
davideduardo said:
The position at Televisa was that the anchor was flavoring the newscasts with commentary and "biased language". The newscaster said that "new journalism" required the newsman to interpret the news for the viewers. Televisa said that they did not agree, as news should be interpreted by the viewer.
Click to expand...

Just like Ellison promised the FCC he will present all ideologies to get the Paramount sale approved. Mission accomplished.

davideduardo said:
OK, I agree, he is stupid and misguided. But that does not affect what we are discussing which is the political leaning of the major networks.
Click to expand...

Which, for the time being, are still covered by the first amendment. There is no fairness doctrine.

If conservatives have these perceptions of the major networks, they don't have to watch. Lots of other choices for them. The networks are on life support anyway. No need to worry about it. It reminds me of what one GenX FCC staffer said about broadcasting: Let the dinosaurs graze by themselves. They'll all be gone soon anyway.
 
Last edited:
TheBigA said:
He was the Walter Cronkite of Univision, and they threw him out to get an interview with Trump. They got the interview. Mission accomplished.
Click to expand...
Wrong. He had been a "bone of contention" since Televisa bought Univision. Televisa (and its predecessor company) is moderate politically, and that allowed them to exist for nearly 90 years in Mexico under a range of political climates.

Jorge Ramos was not the "Walter Cronkite" of Univision as he was highly polarizing, the opposite of Cronkite. Televisa wanted news to be news, without opinion mixed in. Ramos had more and more inserted commentary, opinion and advice into news items.
TheBigA said:
If conservatives have these perceptions of the major networks, they don't have to watch. Lots of other choices for them. The networks are on life support anyway. No need to worry about it. It reminds me of what one GenX FCC staffer said about broadcasting: Let the dinosaurs graze by themselves. They'll all be gone soon anyway.
Click to expand...
In the meantime, those in power who grew up under the belief that the networks were all-important will continue to worry about them.
 
I think the real question that needs to be answered is the one Michael Hagerty points to without asking; namely, why do so many conservatives believe that stories about the imposed famine in Gaza or the Las Vegas man who went to Manhattan (New York) and then gunned down five people is liberal bias.

The answer, I think, is something that Elon Musk was quoted as saying a few months back. Going by memory, Mr. Musk said that people who are in trouble shouldn't be helped by either the government or by other people; i.e. people should be left alone to face the outside world without any outside assistance from others. The problem for the conservatives is the visuals. When you see kids dying from famine, regardless of where it is, you (well, most humans anyway) want to help them, and that flies in the face of the conservative mantra exemplified by Elon Musk. The whole and terrible truth is that if these actions were to happen to today's conservatives, then they would act no differently than the people they are complaining about.

Here's another example. Earlier in this thread when I pointed out that the FCC *did* some regulation of cable TV and streaming accessibility at the request of Congress, @davideduardo commented that he more or less supported these efforts because he had a deaf daughter who was directly affected by the ability to read audio captions. I would submit that if @davideduardo's daughter was not deaf, it is well possible that he would be singing a different tune about requests for accessibility by the sensory disabled to the media. If the accessibility doesn't personally affect you other than that it is being taken out of your taxes, then some of you will view this as inappropriate Federal spending of your tax dollars.

I don't have an answer for this viewpoint that will change the holder's mind. However, what I do have, at least for now, is a U.S. Constitution that guarantees the right for right and left to speak freely, regardless of how those with opposing views may think and that first amendment extends to public as well as private comments by individuals and by members of the press, including radio and television broadcasters.
 
I would contend this happens on both sides of he fence. What we have is a bunch of people on both sides that are too busy, don't care to or are not educated enough to get at the truth. What we end up with is a person that chooses to believe what they are spoonfed by the media, whichever leaning they trust. I've always figured thev truth was somewhere in the middle so I usually try to take in both sides. What I find is the same on each side: only facts that support their angle and an attitude of any other view is that of stupid people. In other words I'm finding the left-leaning and the right-leaning are exactly the same: none giving you the whole story, just that they want you to see.

Worst of all, we have allowed ourselves to hate one another based on something we exercise absolutely no control over. Yes, hate. Families torn apart, friendships ended and such. This politics 'illness' will destroy us. Look at the approval rating of Congress and how the reality is the member of congress votes for heir party not the will of the American people when push comes to shove.

When it comes to investors like Soros and others, it's always money over politics. And I think when it comes to politics, most are squarely in the middle. President Biden was my president (not my choice) but I respect the office and the person filling that office just as President Trump is my president now.
 
davideduardo said:
In the meantime, those in power who grew up under the belief that the networks were all-important will continue to worry about them.
Click to expand...

They're doing more than worry. They're using the power of the government to illegally and unconstitutionally abridge their freedom.

Meanwhile the audience is abandoning traditional media because it's too regulated, too commercialized, and too bland. The real news media operates online away from any regulation or control.
 
b-turner said:
Worst of all, we have allowed ourselves to hate one another based on something we exercise absolutely no control over. Yes, hate. Families torn apart, friendships ended and such. This politics 'illness' will destroy us.
Click to expand...

I agree. We see it right here. However, the message carries a lot more power when it's promoted daily by the president of the country. There is no anchor or late night host who has that power. Both sides report what he says every day. He has the power to tone it down, but he won't. The media is just the messenger. The "illness" seems to be the desired effect.
 
TheBigA said:
I agree. We see it right here. However, the message carries a lot more power when it's promoted daily by the president of the country. There is no anchor or late night host who has that power. Both sides report what he says every day. He has the power to tone it down, but he won't. The media is just the messenger. The "illness" seems to be the desired effect.
Click to expand...

And let's be clear. In the four years that Joe Biden was president, he was not promoting division. He was talking about a united America.

There were never cat-and-mouse games about getting needed disaster relief funding to red states. He didn't slam the people who voted against him. He was remarkably restrained when it came to remarks about "the former guy", considering what happened at the Capitol two weeks before his inauguration.

And what was the response on the right and from right wing media? "F*** Joe Biden". Memes of him as a child molester. Vehicle wraps showing him bound and gagged in the bed of a pickup truck.

"I see it on both sides" is bullshit. Dems never did that. Dems STILL don't do that.

Every goddamn thing the right does is calculated to make their people hate people who don't agree.

I could respect it if the right's approach was "You misunderstand. Let us explain why this is good for you and good for America."

Instead, we get attempts to end discussion and debate and simply seize power, from January 6 through attempts to put elections under partisan control, attempts to redistrict without bothering to consult census data and outright extortion of millions of dollars through personal lawsuits filed by a sitting president intended to (outside the bounds of FCC rules and fines) enforce prior restraint on broadcast networks by simply making it too expensive to exercise their First Amendment rights.

The only conclusion is that they want the least possible opposition as they remake the country, calling a 1.5% margin of victory a "massive mandate".

My dad very nearly died---twice---fighting for freedom in the South Pacific in World War II, so I take this really personally.
 
davideduardo said:
The Fox OTA TV network is not the same division of the Fox conglomerate as Fox News, a cable talk web. The Fox Network has no evening or morning news, and no late-night talk show.
Click to expand...
The animated cartoons are quite liberal. "American Dad" would fit right in with Fox News were it still on the network, but I think it mainly made MAGAts look like buffoons.
 
And, not to put too fine a point on it, but when the official position of the government appears to its citizens appears to be "No, Mister Bond---I expect you to die", the media damn well better be able to inform people:

"Without the endangerment finding, the E.P.A. would be left with no authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions that are accumulating in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels, leading to rising seas, fiercer storms, more deadly heat waves and other extreme weather events.

The proposal would be President Trump’s most significant step yet to derail federal climate efforts. It marks a notable shift in the administration’s position from one that had downplayed the threat of global warming to one that essentially flatly denies the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change.

In recent weeks, the Trump administration has also moved to scrap restrictions on pollution from power plants, halt key measurements of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and delay approvals of wind and solar energy projects on federal lands."
Click to expand...

 


Back
Top Bottom