The Right-Wing Media Takeover Is Destroying America
The Right-Wing Media Takeover Is Destroying America
The purchase of The Baltimore Sun is further proof that conservative billionaires understand the power of media control. Why don’t their liberal counterparts get it?
The purchase of The Baltimore Sun is further proof that conservative billionaires understand the power of media control. Why don’t their liberal counterparts get it?
You have no doubt seen the incredibly depressing news about the incredibly depressing purchase of The Baltimore Sun by the incredibly depressing David Smith, chairman of Sinclair Broadcast Group, the right-wing media empire best known for gobbling up local television news operations and forcing local anchors to spout toxic Big Brother gibberish like this.
The Sun was once a great newspaper. I remember reading, once upon a time, that it had sprung more foreign correspondents into action across the planet than any American newspaper save The New York Times and The Washington Post. It had eight foreign bureaus at one point, all of which were shuttered by the Tribune Company by 2006. But the Sun’s real triumphs came in covering its gritty, organic city. And even well after its glory days, it still won Pulitzers—as recently as 2020, for taking down corrupt Mayor Catherine Pugh, who served a stretch in prison thanks to the paper.
You're viewing a single thread.
Why don't their liberal counterparts get it?
Because they don't exist. I do not believe it is possible to be truly progressive, have left leaning morals, and be a billionaire. The only way to aquire enough money to control the media narrative of a country the size of America is to be a massive piece of shit. Even the "good" billionaires got there by stepping on as many fingers as possible while they climbed the ladder. Our system inherently rewards people with bad morals, and then enables them to control the conversation for everyone else. Which they obviously use to further their shitty ideas
Demand free speech rights for leftists. That's literally how the conservative takeover started: demanding free speech rights for conservatives, leading to the Telecommunications Act which empowered this Sinclair slime.
So Taylor Swift is a massive piece of shit?
Little Miss Carbon Emissions? I'd say polluting the Earth at rates thousands of times higher than the average person kind of makes you a massive piece of shit. Just because she's nice doesn't mean her lifestyle is acceptable.
I'd say the fossil fuel lobby has done a great job pairing with their Conservative allies in media to deflect blame off themselves and towards celebrities.
It's not just celebrities, it's politicians, it's inherited wealth.
It's everyone who meets up at Davos, the corporate side, the business side, the governmental side.
Private jets, yachts, need to be banned outright. We have zoom. This ain't the 1950s anymore.
fake nice
I’d argue that, of course, she isn’t. But by the standards of the person you’re responding to, in order for her to be truly altruistic, she should, ideally, just give all her money away. Of course, she would keep enough for herself to live a modestly, comfortable life, and, of course, she has a constant income stream by which she would continue to earn large amounts of money… but, by keeping all of her money, she’s making a negative moral and ethical choice by not sharing all of that wealth with those who very much need it.
Does that make her a piece of shit necessarily? Again, I would say no (edit: this has to do with a complex calculus of circumstances specific to Miss Swift). But, following the moral ethical logic of the person to whom you responded, and many others, holding onto all of that wealth is neither moral nor ethical. 
Edit: please note that I am not necessarily making this argument, myself; I’m just trying to answer your question. Although, in my opinion, Taylor Swift is not a piece of shit.
Being a billionaire,regardless of how you became a billionaire, is unethical and immoral.
That’s a valid argument to make. The question, however, was “Is Taylor Swift a massive piece of shit?” IMO she is not.
So the better question is: Does being immoral and unethical, due to being a billionaire, make you a "massive piece of shit"?
Me? No,.I don't think it does. BUT I don't know Taylor Swift personally. She's never invited me over for Mani/Pedi spa days nor do I follow her in entertainment news/gossip so she definitely could be and I wouldn't know.
I think that is both of the questions just asked together, in a more efficient manner. technically, I think that is a better question. 
She's also not really a billionaire. She's worth $1.1bil, but I highly doubt that's tied up in physical investments and liquid assets. Her art is popular, and she's in demand, but when her popularity inevitably fades one day, her net worth will also depreciate.
Um actually, they're only worth that much on paper, it's all assets that they can't...
Shut the fuck up. She could rent Liechtenstein, she owns multiple airplanes, and her dog's closet is bigger than my home. Stop bootlicking. Who gives a shit what her wealth looks like? She has more money than people are even capable of imagining, why does it matter?
Being rich ≠ being a billionaire. I don't know why you're butthurt over reality, but lying about the facts of the matter is just creating outrage where none reasonably exists. Want to get pissed off because she's richer than most people? Fine. But don't lie just to go off on a "billionaires are unethical" tirade and aim it at someone who isn't one.
Observing the facts is not bootlicking. Sorry that makes you uncomfortable, but grow the fuck up.
lying about the facts of the matter
You mean like claiming that someone with a net "worth" of over a billion isn't a billionaire, setting arbitrary conditions on accepting reality?
Observing the facts is not bootlicking
Twisting them into a pretzel to deny that a billionaire is a billionaire is awfully close, though.
Sorry that makes you uncomfortable, but grow the fuck up.
You should take your own advice and stop inventing alternative definitions for clearly defined words such as "billionaire", "facts", "reality" and "lying".
Net worth of an artist ≠ net worth of a real estate mogul. Unlike the real estate mogul, she can't just sell off her voice and personality, the core of her "value." It's not my problem you don't like those facts.
If you want to be mad at her for being wealthy, for flying on private jets or whatever, fine. I'm not her fan. I don't give a fuck. But don't go tilting at windmills over her being a billionaire, when that label is applied artificially.
Net worth of an artist ≠ net worth of a real estate mogul
Whether you're in real estate, the arts or any other business, you don't become a billionaire without stepping on a lot of people and being extremely exploitative.
It's such an absurdly large amount of hoarded treasure, no matter how much you try to play it off as not counting when you sing or whatever nonsense you've convinced yourself of.
she can't just sell off her voice and personality, the core of her "value."
That she can't get rid of a couple of her many sources of income doesn't make her any less of a billionaire
It's not my problem you don't like those facts.
You haven't argued from fact at any point, only your completely baseless opinion that a billionaire who sings isn't really a billionaire.
I don't give a fuck
Could have fooled me!
being a billionaire, when that label is applied artificially.
No, that "label" describes anyone with a net "worth" of a billion or more, regardless of sources of income. That's what the word FACTUALLY means, no matter how little you like that fact.
How much are her dancers paid? Session musicians? Staff? PR team? Tour team?
I agree with you... But...
Yes
Probably, yeah. Also, Trouble is her only good song and even that one's better in the meme version with the goats.
I’ve also heard she has a bad reputation.
Aww you made me hope for the Joan Jett's banger Bad Reputation rather than another boring Taylor Swift song 😮💨
We’re all massive pieces of shit, myself included. She is trapped in a system that incentivizes wealth accumulation over wealth distribution.
Could such a radical conclusion really be true? You are probably already trying to think of ways to dismiss it. But it is not enough to simply reject the conclusion. Since the conclusion logically follows from the premises, to reject it you must show one (or more) of the premises to be false.