No, it does not preclude him from buying most anything. But it scares many of us,
-
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
- Thread starter johnbasalla
- Start date
No, wrong. Those of us who are skeptical of anything Soros does only have to refer to the "breaking of the Pound" in England, which cause horrible suffering and financial stress to much of the "working class" there.... just to make some money.
"George Soros is one of the most successful and influential investors in history. He is also known for his philanthropic and political activities, as well as his controversial views on various issues. But perhaps his most famous achievement was his role in the 1992 currency crisis that forced the British government to withdraw from the European exchange rate mechanism (ERM) and devalue its currency, the pound sterling."
George Soros and Black Wednesday: How He Broke the Bank of England
Discover how George Soros profited $1 billion by shorting the British pound on Black Wednesday, leading to its devaluation and the UK's exit from the ERM.www.investopedia.com
Further:
The withdrawal from the ERM was a humiliating defeat for Britain’s government and a major blow to its credibility and reputation. It also caused economic turmoil and social unrest in Britain, as interest rates remained high, inflation rose, unemployment increased, and public spending was cut.
And yet---when the right goes after him, that's rarely mentioned.
Quite possibly because (and all this is coming from the piece you posted, David):
a) He was by no means alone:
b) The short-term chaos led to long-term benefit:
c) His motives and actions are pretty hard to assail from a traditional conservative economic viewpoint and would be excused and/or applauded if performed by someone on the political right:
Plus, a huge chunk of the American right's eyes would glaze over if you tried to explain ANY of that to them.
And so, when the right goes after Soros, it accuses him, without evidence, of:
- Paying protestors to commit violent acts in Charlottesville in 2017
- Organizing and funding caravans of migrants to overwhelm the southern border of the United States
- Funding "white genocide" and controlling the media
- Personally buying 220 radio stations to "control the news narrative"
- Owning the fact-checking website Snopes and rigging it to show right-wing conspiracy theories in a bad light
And, look, the list goes on from there, and it gets uglier (a bunch of it based solely on Soros' being a Jew and wealthy).
Bottom line: You told (most of) the truth about one thing you don't like about Soros. But the vast majority of what gets used against him by the right are lies rooted in anti-Semitism.
The scary thing is that broadcasting is in such a bad state now that it doesn't have the luxury of picking its owners. The fact that anyone is still willing to risk their money on a declining technology is amazing. I certainly would never do it. When Soros sells his shares, there won't be a lot of nice people rushing to buy them.
The 2008 financial meltdown was caused by all manner of financial speculation and manipulation which in that case blew up in people’s faces, also causing “horrible suffering and financial stress to much of the working class” in the U.S.
Those behind that financial debacle should receive the same skepticism that you are directing at Soros.
Massive amounts of financial manipulation go on all the time. Most people don’t understand any of it, thus it all fails to receive greater scrutiny.
How many Americans know anything about the UK, except that it is where the Beatles came from?
Soros, for whatever reason may be a bastard to some. But he has not sued NPR or CBS when the story wasn't personally flattering. He has not cancelled programs on Audacy stations. And he's not forcing Audacy management to it's knees to appease him.
AND....If George Soros is a boogeyman, all I can say is he's not the one acting like it...
AND....If George Soros is a boogeyman, all I can say is he's not the one acting like it...
Persons or groups go where they think they might get support. Organizations that send out fund raising letters also sell their mailing lists to other like-minded people and organizations. They get more money by doing that. The fact is that no one person can support all of the worthy things that come in. Let's take Pro-Life issues as an example. There seem to be a fairly large number of different organizations covering the same topic, or a portion of the topic, all asking for donations. The problem is that, it seems likely to me, that few of them can obtain enough donations to do much because there are so many different ones out there with their 'hand out'. Wouldn't it be better to have just one or two organizations fundraising so that enough money could come in for the cause?
Of course, this is getting off the topic of radio, but it seemed appropriate to fully answer the question. Sorry if someone is bothered.
Is the next sentence “so we had to make up some really vile shit for ignorant people”?
WGA East Journalists At NYC’S 1010 WINS Radio Station Petition Audacy To Address Worker Safety In Contract Talks As Deadline Looms
The journalists at NYC's 1010 WINS radio station are particularly aiming to address worker safety in the latest round of negotiations
deadline.com
Is this the issue on why an elected official is talking about Soros again. But here it's the WGA and Audacy New York in negotiations for better conditions and deals. Not sure where the Senator is going but this is going nowhere except Audacy All-News Stations being targeted by the FCC over coverage the White House does not want released.
Typical far-right drivel.
One of my favorite records!
Route 101 is another excellent record:
They're trying to distract from other goings on, I suspect.
Another good record, albeit a bit dated now (don't hear it much in the wild anymore).
The mono, radio-ready version, of course, is the best sounding, as was often the case back then.
I suspect nobody's mad at him because he doesn't seem particularly political. All he does is make music.
c
As I said in the post you’re responding to, he is a donor to heavily liberal and Democratic candidates.
Soros is involved in northing more controversial than Herb is. He just has more money to donate.
Ah, I see. I missed that point for some reason.
Nevertheless, Herb Alpert seems to have a lower profile, probably because, as you said, Soros is basically out-donating him.
Why Soros, though? I'm sure there are other similarly wealthy people with similar backgrounds making similar donations to similar causes, and nobody on the right is going after them?
The degree of senseless vitriol coming from the GOP toward people like Soros astounds me.
c
Liberal and leftist organizations probably do the same thing.
Absolutely. See also the Koch Brothers.
That's a long time ago. Same with Bain Capital. I'm not aware that either are involved much in broadcasting. There's a new group now.
I think the public is starting to grow tired of being used by politicians. I think the revolt over Epstein is an indication. The people are media savvy. They're starting to see through a lot of the ways in which they're being manipulated. The "Soros buying radio" meme is a great example, because all of the terrible things the politicians said would happen didn't. His money didn't lead to any changes in programming. On the other hand, when a conservative buys a media group, the first thing he does is change the programming. We're starting to see that with Ellison and CBS. My view on this is that liberals are about empowering people, while conservatives are about control. The funding of public radio didn't come with mandates for programming. It was about empowering stations and producers to pursue their own vision. The Musk purchase of Twitter came with more top-down control and mass firings of staff.
Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe Soros has flipped the formats at the Audacy conservative talk stations and replaced them with Democracy Now. What has Soros done with Audacy that's so bad? We all saw how Kari Lake dealt with VOA. She fired all the staff and replaced them with OANN. Is this really what the country wants? Do they really want more consolidation and centralization of radio? Because that's what the conservatives want. We'll see how far Brendan Carr's FCC goes in ownership deregulation.
Uh-uh.
We've cited facts. "Probably" isn't gonna fly here.
You may have noticed, I'm way past letting even David try to baffle us with bullshit.
If you have examples equivalent to what the right does to George Soros, post 'em and we'll see if they hold up.
If not---don't you dare toss a stink bomb like that and run.
You too, PT. Find me examples where what's said about the Koch Brothers is untrue and rooted in an equivalent of Anti-Semitism and we'll see how they shake out.
Last edited:
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
Made it bigger and bolder, to emphasize the points.
Those who try to make their points without researching the facts first, and then rely on rhetoric or hedging verbiage to cover for the lack of same, are in my opinion engaging in equally misleading behavior as politicians such as Sen. Kennedy; his fundraising letter takes a fact (Soros' investing in Audacy) and then ignores the facts that do not support his position.
Cherry-picking the facts is bad enough. Skewing the facts to make them sound like something else is worse. Making claims in the absence of facts is the worst.
But he also twisted the facts. Soros didn't "buy 220 radio stations." That is factually wrong. He bought debt in a company going through bankruptcy. He twisted the facts for a reason, and that was to manipulate his audience. Carr has done the same thing with this story, for the same reason. In any case, what do conservatives fear about a liberal having a stake in radio stations? Shouldn't we be happy that someone saved this company from all of the vulture capitalists out there who are buying and destroying radio stations?
It's intellectual dishonesty and bad-faith arguing, and there's a whopper of an example on another thread:
I've had it. Other viewpoints are fine. Just don't lie, excuse lies, or try to exhaust me, because I did this for a living. I'd rather not do it now, but I can't help myself, and if anybody wants to play this game, I will make you prove every point until you either have proven it, can't prove it or Lance has shut down the thread.