Rupert Murdoch, other potential buyers eye L.A. Times
Source: LA Times
With Tribune Co. expected to emerge from bankruptcy soon, News Corp. Chairman and Chief Executive Rupert Murdoch is looking to acquire two of its trophy properties the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune.
Tribune Co.'s debt holders two investment firms and a bank will become majority owners of the company after it exits bankruptcy, which could happen by year's end. News Corp. executives have had preliminary talks with these debt holders about acquiring the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune, according to two ranking News Corp. executives and others familiar with the situation.
These people cautioned that talks are in the early stages, and that a deal is by no means certain. Other potential buyers have expressed interest.
Murdoch heads the world's largest news company, which includes the Wall Street Journal and the Times of London.
Read more: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-murdoch-newspapers-20121020,0,6204152.story
Just what LA needs.
Although the LA Times does already employ Republican doughboy Jonah Goldberg.
DBoon
(22,363 posts)nt
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Up until then I had read it all my life.
plethoro
(594 posts)dddddddddd
Cleita
(75,480 posts)I stopped reading it and it's turn into a right wing screed about at that time.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)cyclezealot
(4,802 posts)What is a community without a newspaper.. While the Times is not what it used to be- Freepers still consider the likes of Patti Morrison or Jonah Goldberg to be commies.. Murdock coming to town can't be good for democracy . will we be able to help some alternative source of news come to our rescue.. ?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And if Murdoch takes it over, there will be massive cancellations -- massive cancellations. We in Los Angeles do not want Murdoch's lies in our city.
cyclezealot
(4,802 posts)we need inform Rupert, he'll find no profitable market here for his B.S.. Can we.?
tarheelsunc
(2,117 posts)Divine Discontent
(21,056 posts)makes me wonder why people like Soros or other well-to-do liberals don't buy these papers, radio stations, local channels? tired of having a hard time finding a reality based news source...
Get it here --->
http://www.zazzle.com/which_face_today_mitt_romney_bumper_sticker-128778323738073483?rf=238107662556833486
liberalmike27
(2,479 posts)You guys expressed my thoughts--not only should he not be able to by law buy these places, but come on!! Can any of you other millionaires or billionaires out there buy some media to keep them all from being consumed by one guys thoughts???
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)...with the 1 Percenters at the top, cheering him on. "Own the media. Own the media."
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)If that that EVIL Bastard buys the LA Times...that's the last for us.
AND, I will do my best to get others to drop it as well.
Hey EVIL Bastard, go back to Australia...you aren't welcome in America.
mimi85
(1,805 posts)for at least 25 years. We live in a very conservative suburb halfway between LA and San Diego and the Times has helped me cope over the years. Damn, our county newspaper is such a rag - no way on earth would I ever subscribe to that bird cage liner!
The last few years have been rough at the Times after the Tribune sale although they do have some good columnists like Steve Lopez and Sandy Banks (yep, I'm one of those saps who have actually teared up when reading some of their stuff). And I usually enjoy Column One. My husband is mainly into the sports and the Calendar section however he just said he'd be with me on canceling if this bullshit sale goes through. And like someone else said, LA won't take kindly to this. At all. What a cluster! How much control does this douchebag need??
I love reading newspapers (old school, I know) and when we used to travel a lot, the first thing I used to do was get a copy of the local newspaper. This is such sucky news, damn it, I didn't get a chance to read the whole paper this morning and missed this story - crazy day. Crap. Maybe I should splurge and get the NY Times?
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)The Right Wing has inserted itself everywhere to the point where normal Americans are getting fed up.
Seriously, go and ask normal non-political types and they will tell you they are sick of these people.
It's like they are a throwback to the Clinton Years and they expect everyone to completely FORGET the Bush Years. "Hi! Remember us? The anti-sex guys?"
"We're going to make sure everybody on that beach isn't thinking about sex and hates Mexicans."
Julien Sorel
(6,067 posts)The LA Times is one of the best papers left; Murdock will fuck it up as he's fucked everything else up. The WSJ has clearly gone downhill since he's owned it; even wingnut friends of mine have said it isn't what it was. God only knows what the Times will look like when he's done with it.
WRH2
(87 posts)We need to roll back and regulate the purchase of all forms of broadcast and print media by large corporations. This purchase and a lot of ownership is not healthy for a democratic society.
I learned 40 years ago that democracy requires an educated electorate. This requires a free press.
It's going to take initiative for the citizenry to clean up a number of our institutions if this country is to stop morphing into some thing we don't recognize or desire.
A FREE PRESS is a cornerstone of democracy. Period
onenote
(42,700 posts)Count me out, thank you very much.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)onenote
(42,700 posts)Indeed, I think the risk of one voice controlling all media is much greater if the government can decide who gets to print newspapers.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)There used to be new-media ownership caps. Were those wrong?
There used to be a notion that the media should not abuse the public trust. Was that wrong?
Is keeping criminals from owning EVERY kind of access to information an unreasonable interference?
If so, why have a government at all?
Or is that your real point?
onenote
(42,700 posts)Period.
I should add, by the way, I don't think there ever was legal obligation for a newspaper not to "abuse the public trust", at least not in this country and not constitutionally.
Keep in mind, this subthread started out as, and my comments have been limited to, newspapers, not the electronic media.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)It turned out to be an unfounded rumour 20th October.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)John2
(2,730 posts)Maybe someone should get into the news business against Murdoch. This guy seems to want control of the Media. So there maybe be an opening for opposite views. Look at FOX news. They just appease one certain group of people. I don't even watch FOX.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Another clueless CEO?
joanbarnes
(1,722 posts)dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)(Reuters) - News Corp said on Saturday reports that it is in discussions with Tribune Co or the Los Angeles Times are "wholly inaccurate."
Reuters and the Los Angeles Times reported on Friday that News Corp Chairman Rupert Murdoch is looking to buy the Los Angeles Times.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/10/20/uk-newscorp-tribune-idUKBRE89J03I20121020
Must confess I was a bit surprised unless they were going to pick it up for song. These days most newspapers are sold strictly for general articles, adverts and crossword puzzles.
mimi85
(1,805 posts)Hopefully it's true. I would hate to cancel my subscription; however, as I posted earlier, I would cancel in a nanosecond! Gotta get my morning fix of a good cup of java and the paper. Keeping my fingers crossed that the report is accurate!
wordpix
(18,652 posts)investigating this time around
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)newspeak
(4,847 posts)create a national cooperative paper that just reports the news. maybe add a special section in the paper for what's going in congress and what bills are on the floor and post the votes.
murdoch has aided in the creation of a shallow, (more interested what the famous are doing, than what's going on that truly impacts the plebes) fact less media.
and mega corporations gain more and more power and influence on the flow of information that the people are allowed to perceive. not good if a nation is attempting to portray itself as a free democratic republic.