PDA

View Full Version : The Weekly Standard Loses $1,000,000 per year...


jAZ
08-14-2007, 01:17 AM
I had always assumed that the influential conservative publications like the neo-con The Weekly Standard were subsidized by a conservative billionaire like Richard Mellon Scaife. But I didn't realize that it was a owned by a publicly traded corporation that operates the publication at a loss of $1,000,000 per year.

It's owned by News Corp (ie, Fox News).

I would think that shareholders might be pissed that they are losing their share of $1,000,000 per year every year since 1995 (or whenever News Corp bought the magazine).

I wonder WTF the motivation was for News Corp to buy such a money-sucking publication?

jAZ
08-14-2007, 01:31 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weekly_Standard

The Weekly Standard
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Weekly Standard is an American neoconservative [1] magazine published 48 times per year. It made its debut on September 17, 1995 and is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation which also owns Fox news. It is viewed as a leading neoconservative magazine. Its current editors are founder William Kristol and Fred Barnes. The Weekly Standard produces "The Daily Standard" with commentary and articles written for the magazine's website.

...

The magazine loses more than a million dollars a year. Nevertheless, Rupert Murdoch, the head of the News Corporation, denies that there are any plans to sell it.[2]

Interesting bit on the role the propaganda from the Weekly Standard played in pushing the Iraq war from the first day after 9/11 and the conflation of Al Queda and Saddam.

The American Conservative also points out how much the Weekly Standard pushed for war against Iraq and that Saddam was tied to al Qaeda. "[I]n the first issue the magazine published after 9/11, Gary Schmitt and Tom Donnelly, two employees of Kristol’s PNAC, clarified what ought to be the country’s war aims. Their rhetoric—which laid down a line from which the magazine would not waver over the next 18 months—was to link Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden in virtually every paragraph, to join them at the hip in the minds of readers, and then to lay out a strategy that actually gave attacking Saddam priority over eliminating al-Qaeda. The first piece was illustrated with a caricature of Saddam, not bin Laden, and the proposed operational plan against bin Laden was astonishingly soft." [1]

ClevelandBronco
08-14-2007, 01:37 AM
I had always assumed that the influential conservative publications like the neo-con The Weekly Standard were subsidized by a conservative billionaire like Richard Mellon Scaife. But I didn't realize that it was a owned by a publicly traded corporation that operates the publication at a loss of $1,000,000 per year.

It's owned by News Corp (ie, Fox News).

I would think that shareholders might be pissed that they are losing their share of $1,000,000 per year every year since 1995 (or whenever News Corp bought the magazine).

I wonder WTF the motivation was for News Corp to buy such a money-sucking publication?

To help shape public opinion, dummy.

Logical
08-14-2007, 02:06 AM
I also think you are ignoring who owns most of the shares.

BucEyedPea
08-14-2007, 09:02 AM
To help shape public opinion, dummy.

Well, that's what the WS ads on Fox say: "shaping public opinion."

Do you realize that Murdoch pumps in a lot of porn into India. Those people are religious and are upset about it. So much for Fox having a conservative agenda. Part of the great deception of our times.

Now Murdoch owns the WSJ. Some of his followers like Gingrich want to regulate speech including on the internet. Something Paul has fought. Sounds like a lot of media consolidation being attempted. Not good.

BucEyedPea
08-14-2007, 09:10 AM
I wonder WTF the motivation was for News Corp to buy such a money-sucking publication?
I've known this for years about the Weekly Standard. My understanding, however is that more than a few of these type publications aren't money makers. I have no list though as I read this 4 years ago. WS's purpose is for creating influence over the decision makers in our country. In that sense it's worth its weight in gold. I heard hundreds of WS's were handed out to congressman and to the WH including the president before Iraq. So that's the influence it has had on the war. That and that it's being a virtual lie factory too.

What we need is for conservatives, including Evangelicals to do some soul searching on whose manipulating issues with false reports, half-truths and red-herrings.

What's funny is someone on my generic NFL board posted a quote by one these NC's laughing about how the RR/Evangelicals are their "useful idiots." I can't recall what is source was. I should go through the archives and find it.

ClevelandBronco
08-14-2007, 09:12 AM
Well, that's what the WS ads on Fox say: "shaping public opinion."

Do you realize that Murdoch pumps in a lot of porn into India. Those people are religious and are upset about it. So much for Fox having a conservative agenda. Part of the great deception of our times.

Now Murdoch owns the WSJ. Some of his followers like Gingrich want to regulate speech including on the internet. Something Paul has fought. Sounds like a lot of media consolidation being attempted. Not good.

Another day, another 25 messages from BEP with the same old song.

We get it. You're the last conservative standing.

BucEyedPea
08-14-2007, 09:15 AM
Another I can't articulate an intelligent rebuttal by Cleveland Bronco.

ClevelandBronco
08-14-2007, 09:19 AM
Another I can't articulate an intelligent rebuttal by Cleveland Bronco.

Did you make a point I should rebut? Murdoch is backing porn in India? Gingrich wants to regulate free speech on the Internet? I don't know or care if either of those statements is true.

BucEyedPea
08-14-2007, 09:21 AM
Did you make a point I should rebut? Murdoch is backing porn in India? Gingrich wants to regulate free speech on the Internet? I don't know or care if either of those statements is true.
Obviously you did because you responded.

BucEyedPea
08-14-2007, 09:30 AM
Jaz,
Did you know The Weekly Standard has its offices in the same building, and the AEI and Project for a New American Century as well as a whole group of NeoCon outfits, generously funded by giant multinational corps.

ClevelandBronco
08-14-2007, 10:18 AM
Obviously you did because you responded.

Responding ain't rebutting, honey. I'm just here for fun. If you think you're on a football message board for something more important than that, have at it.

Taco John
08-14-2007, 10:23 AM
To help shape public opinion, dummy.



Yep. Did you know Murdoch also owns the NIV Bible? I was suprised to find out that, too, was his publication.

ClevelandBronco
08-14-2007, 10:31 AM
Yep. Did you know Murdoch also owns the NIV Bible? I was suprised to find out that, too, was his publication.

Good investment.

Taco John
08-14-2007, 10:43 AM
Good investment.



Probably not a bad investment... My problem with the NIV is that they change the translation to fit the modern evangelical understanding of the scripture, rather than changing beliefs to fit what the scripture says. As such I don't put any stock in the NIV translation.

Cochise
08-14-2007, 10:44 AM
*edit - I found it, it's on the seventh page and not the linked page.

I don't think that someone, especially a majority shareholder, should have to apologize for running a business in the way he sees fit. Certainly, it is an influential publication and is not necessarily without merit in itself or through other parts of news corp.

The first thing that jumps into my mind is, does the New York Times not own the Boston Globe? And is the Boston Globe not losing money every year? So why does the New York Times keep propping up the Boston Globe?

Cochise
08-14-2007, 11:52 AM
Probably not a bad investment... My problem with the NIV is that they change the translation to fit the modern evangelical understanding of the scripture, rather than changing beliefs to fit what the scripture says. As such I don't put any stock in the NIV translation.

I find it ironic that you cast the NIV as some kind of corrupt, evangelical generated translation, because the King-James-Only types often say that it supports Roman theology and that it's generally more liberal than they believe is justified.

I've never used one myself. I got an ESV a couple of years ago and like it a lot.

BucEyedPea
08-14-2007, 05:28 PM
The first thing that jumps into my mind is, does the New York Times not own the Boston Globe? And is the Boston Globe not losing money every year? So why does the New York Times keep propping up the Boston Globe?
My understanding, based on reports I've read, is that traditional news media has a declining audience all around. But that speficic political publications like the WS have not always made money. Anyhow, just what I've read and am passing it on.

BucEyedPea
08-14-2007, 05:31 PM
Responding ain't rebutting, honey. I'm just here for fun. If you think you're on a football message board for something more important than that, have at it.
The Lounge is for fun. When I wanna have fun I'll go there or my other board. This is DC. Get with the program.

Oh and FTR, when I refer to conservatives not being conservatives I'm talking inside the Beltway: current candidates, politicians etc. I'm not necessarily referrin' to the rank n' file such as yourself.

Velvet_Jones
08-15-2007, 08:37 AM
How come jIZ didn't have this attitude when Air America was loosing millions?

Cochise
08-15-2007, 09:13 AM
How come jIZ didn't have this attitude when Air America was loosing millions?

"when"?