I am locking this thread, thanking suchmoon, because it is not accredited what the title says, and leaving it open can be misleading.
If someone finds evidence to affirm that the US media were bought by China, let them open another thread, but in view of the analysis done, it cannot be affirmed. Moreover, what seems to be more accurate to say is that it is at least an exaggeration, if not a blatant lie.
Topic: U.S. media bought by China (Read 200 times)
Vanguard
LOL
It's probably a fund like VTCAX/VOX that owns shares in all sorts of businesses from Facebook to AT&T.
But hey, good luck fighting mutual funds, you found a worthy adversary.
...
question, who prints the money they all run after to please their egos? you got it. gg wp.
http://www.patriotrevolution.info/images/big6.jpg
question, who prints the money they all run after to please their egos? you got it. gg wp.
http://www.patriotrevolution.info/images/big6.jpg
Inspired by videos such as this one showing how one group of private investors seems to have controlling interest in almost every large corporation in the world, I did a quick scan of the above. It's very questionable because most of these big corporations have a variety of holding companies and listings and I don't know how to untangle it.
Yesterday I did a spot check of one of the large timberland holders in my area in the U.S.. Sure enough, Blackrock and Vanguard.
National Amusements:
- private
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/DIS/holders?p=DIS
- Vanguard
- Blackrock
Time Warner
- private
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/CMCSA/holders?p=CMCSA
- Vanguard
- Blackrock
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/NWSA/holders?p=NWSA
- Vanguard
-
-
- Blackrock
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SONY/holders?p=SONY
10 - Blackrock.
- Vanguard as a mutual fund is number one and holds multiple spots.
who are the ceos of those bio-press-terrorists? end of the discussion.
https://birthofanewearthblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Media-Ownership-3.png
question, who prints the money they all run after to please their egos? you got it. gg wp.
http://www.patriotrevolution.info/images/big6.jpg
add the neobolshevicks of the silicon valley, and you have hit the jack pot.
https://birthofanewearthblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Media-Ownership-3.png
question, who prints the money they all run after to please their egos? you got it. gg wp.
http://www.patriotrevolution.info/images/big6.jpg
add the neobolshevicks of the silicon valley, and you have hit the jack pot.
There is one thing to qualify here. One thing is for a company to advertise in your newspaper/television, etc. but another different matter is that : "revenue from China was an integral part of the Times’s business model. The paper received millions of dollars from Chinese government-controlled outlets,"
It's too broad and vague, sounds almost deliberately made to sound more ominous than it is. What does "millions of dollars" mean? What percentage of NYT's total revenue it was? How big were those ad buys compared to other advertisers?
NYT's revenue was ~$2 billion in 2012, and ~$1.8 billion in 2020.
Yes, but I like to base it on what I can prove, and not on whether I think China may bribe some journalists or not, without having more proof that it is what I think. I have been looking to see if there was more news or more data on the subject, and I see that the amounts paid are laughable compared to the total revenue:
The times of India doesn't allow me to copy and paste so I'll put a screenshot:
Source: CCP buys media influence by paying millions to US dailies
And I don't understand how The Times of India publishes that headline without looking at that for example, if the NYT received $50K, for a total of about $2BN of revenue, the amount received is close to 0%. I guess TToI is a right-wing newspaper that has signed up for the version without properly investigating the facts.
I agree with suchmoon that with those amounts we can't talk about the media being bought, in the same way that we can't say that McDonald's has bought them if they advertise in those media. And especially if they clearly appear as sponsored by the Chinese press as we have seen in the example above. It remains to be seen if all of them were clearly published as sponsored, but in view of the data, the accusation seems to me more and more ridiculous.
You certainly convince me much more than when you dismissed the information simply because you saw Tucker as a source, without seeing that there are others.
Point taken. I appreciate your willingness to look at the facts.
...However, the fact remains that multiple Western governments took the position in 2020 that covid came to the world via a lab leak, yet nearly all western news outlets dismissed this as false.
If the reason is not money paid by the CCP, then why do you think this is? ...
If the reason is not money paid by the CCP, then why do you think this is? ...
Ummm...maybe because around $4 million was sent by the U.S.'s NIH to Wuhan funneled through EcoHealth Alliance to pay for gain-of-function work on coronavirus? And another $40 million or so was sent to the same middle-man from the U.S. DOD for God-only-knows what purpose?
There is one thing to qualify here. One thing is for a company to advertise in your newspaper/television, etc. but another different matter is that : "revenue from China was an integral part of the Times’s business model. The paper received millions of dollars from Chinese government-controlled outlets,"
It's too broad and vague, sounds almost deliberately made to sound more ominous than it is. What does "millions of dollars" mean? What percentage of NYT's total revenue it was? How big were those ad buys compared to other advertisers?
NYT's revenue was ~$2 billion in 2012, and ~$1.8 billion in 2020.
Obviously, there is no smoking gun, and it is not reasonable to ask the NYT to disclose their private communications. However, the fact remains that multiple Western governments took the position in 2020 that covid came to the world via a lab leak, yet nearly all western news outlets dismissed this as false.
If the reason is not money paid by the CCP, then why do you think this is? You might argue this was due to an extreme bias against Trump, and they wanted to get the bad orange man out of office at any cost. If this is your argument, Trump was tougher on China than any other president in modern history.
Your "source" is Tucker? 
There are two huge leaps in this whole thing, both unsupported by any evidence that I can see:
There are two huge leaps in this whole thing, both unsupported by any evidence that I can see:
- NYT published ads from China. Therefore all content (or at least the parts that Tucker doesn't like) is from China.
- NYT published ads from China. Therefore all media was bought by China.
It's not unreasonable to assume that China would have pulled its advertising from a newspaper that ran unflattering news articles about China. It would be kind of a stretch to assume otherwise, in fact.
Them dirty crypto-chinks took on names like Zucker, Sulzberger, Eisner, Rothstein, etc to cover their evil takeover. Sneaky! Good thing people are on to them now.
There is one thing to qualify here. One thing is for a company to advertise in your newspaper/television, etc. but another different matter is that : "revenue from China was an integral part of the Times’s business model. The paper received millions of dollars from Chinese government-controlled outlets,"
It's too broad and vague, sounds almost deliberately made to sound more ominous than it is. What does "millions of dollars" mean? What percentage of NYT's total revenue it was? How big were those ad buys compared to other advertisers?
NYT's revenue was ~$2 billion in 2012, and ~$1.8 billion in 2020.
You certainly convince me much more than when you dismissed the information simply because you saw Tucker as a source, without seeing that there are others.
Without more specifics, about for example how much money it was out of the total revenue, the story sounds less and less credible to me.
There is one thing to qualify here. One thing is for a company to advertise in your newspaper/television, etc. but another different matter is that : "revenue from China was an integral part of the Times’s business model. The paper received millions of dollars from Chinese government-controlled outlets,"
It's too broad and vague, sounds almost deliberately made to sound more ominous than it is. What does "millions of dollars" mean? What percentage of NYT's total revenue it was? How big were those ad buys compared to other advertisers?
NYT's revenue was ~$2 billion in 2012, and ~$1.8 billion in 2020.
Again, you're jumping to Tucker's conclusions without even trying to verify what he's saying. The one example he provided was published as an ad:
As I told Cnut once, I think I'm going to stop debating with you because you give me so much work. I better go shitpost something quick.
You are right that it is clearly seen to be an ad. And about the rest of the articles that Tucker says were deleted and also says were posted as news instead of propaganda, I don't see any evidence in the links I posted.
It would be necessary to see if the deleted articles were published as news or as ad.
Fox runs ads too. I wouldn't claim it's bought by China because it ran a Volvo ad at some point.
There is one thing to qualify here. One thing is for a company to advertise in your newspaper/television, etc. but another different matter is that : "revenue from China was an integral part of the Times’s business model. The paper received millions of dollars from Chinese government-controlled outlets,"
This is stated by The Spectator (link above), which is published in the UK and says it does so based on two independent sources.
In an environment of declining revenues because people are buying fewer and fewer newspapers in print, and Internet advertising revenues are much scarcer, having a state/party/company on which you are partly financially dependent can influence your editorial line, which is what The Spectator comments on.
You don't even need to be threatened. If the company that finances your newspaper the most is a bank, and accusations arise of the bank's president giving money to a politician, you don't even need to be threatened by the bank's president. If you publish investigations of the news, you already know that they will most likely withdraw your advertising. Media outlets that do not receive advertising revenue from the bank are much more likely to publish research on the subject than you are, and you probably know him and have had lunch with him a few times.
The difference is that they were published as news, and not as ads. When you publish a paid article, you should put "sponsored by" or "paid promotion" or things like that that make it clear that this is not objective journalism but that you are advertising for the institution who pays you.
Again, you're jumping to Tucker's conclusions without even trying to verify what he's saying. The one example he provided was published as an ad:
https://www.voanews.com/east-asia/china-claims-islands-ny-times-ad
Quote
China has published an expensive, two-page color advertisement in a prominent U.S. newspaper, defending its claim to disputed islands in the East China Sea.
https://www.businessinsider.com/china-daily-ad-in-new-york-times-2012-9
Quote
Chinese state-owned newspaper China Daily has this two page advert in today's New York Times.
Here is an image where you can see that it's labeled as "advertisement":
(source: https://nuclearrisk.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/another-early-warning-sign/ )
There were ads. There is no evidence that the newspapers were paid to "conceal the origin of COVID". You are (or Tucker is) making the leap from ads to other content being paid for. They give one actual example from 2012, about disputed islands.
The difference is that they were published as news, and not as ads. When you publish a paid article, you should put "sponsored by" or "paid promotion" or things like that that make it clear that this is not objective journalism but that you are advertising for the institution who pays you.
How about you attend to actual facts instead of attacking what you perceive as my political ideology. Media being "bought" is useless clickbait. Fox runs ads too. I wouldn't claim it's bought by China because it ran a Volvo ad at some point.
And how about recognizing the difference between publishing an advertisement making it clear that it is an advertisement and that you are being paid to publish it and being paid to publish something you publish as news? That looks quite like being bought to me.
It’s common thing. Social media is a medium for collecting money and disseminating news. They don’t care about the impact of the news itself. Even these media in the United States They cannot represent that they will speak for the US government.
The capital world is like this, especially in today's economic globalization. It is essential that any company will have shares in other countries' companies.
Now that the media can be accepted by China, even military enterprises will be acquired by China in the future. Today’s businessmen are completely driven by interests, but lack patriotism.
Now that the media can be accepted by China, even military enterprises will be acquired by China in the future. Today’s businessmen are completely driven by interests, but lack patriotism.
IMHO there isn't a single institutional "free press" in the good ole usa. It has all been conquered and now used as pyswarfare/propaganda tools by the enemies of the former Republic.
That's a garbage argument you made up. At no time have I ever said that.
Several major U.S. newspapers, such as Los Angeles Times, or New York Times were paid millions of dollars from the Chinese government to publish pro-China propaganda and conceal the origin of COVID in the Wuhan laboratories.
There were ads. There is no evidence that the newspapers were paid to "conceal the origin of COVID". You are (or Tucker is) making the leap from ads to other content being paid for. They give one actual example from 2012, about disputed islands.
Again. Since you don't feel like attending to information that doesn't agree with your political ideology, you don't read and make up crap fallacies like that. The links I posted talk about 5 newspapers and Twitter.
How about you attend to actual facts instead of attacking what you perceive as my political ideology. Media being "bought" is useless clickbait. Fox runs ads too. I wouldn't claim it's bought by China because it ran a Volvo ad at some point.
Your "source" is Tucker?
If you stopped to read links, instead of dismissing them because Tucker doesn't agree with your political ideology, you would see that there are more links than Tucker. For example: The spectator.
Exclusive: New York Times quashed COVID origins inquiry: "https://spectatorworld.com/topic/new-york-times-quashed-covid-origins-inquiry/"
There are two huge leaps in this whole thing, both unsupported by any evidence that I can see:
- NYT published ads from China. Therefore all content (or at least the parts that Tucker doesn't like) is from China.
That's a garbage argument you made up. At no time have I ever said that.
- NYT published ads from China. Therefore all media was bought by China.
Again. Since you don't feel like attending to information that doesn't agree with your political ideology, you don't read and make up crap fallacies like that. The links I posted talk about 5 newspapers and Twitter.
Jump to: