[staringclown]

Media moguls or corporate looters? Rinehart’s raid marks a changing of the guard

Quote

I particularly like Stephen Maynes’ theory that Rinehart’s decision to raid into Fairfax was an act of hubris and rage at the unsympathetic portrait by Jane Cadzow in Good Weekend (published by Fairfax). From published accounts this seems a typical Rinehart approach to solving a problem.

Vested interests controlling the media is not healthy in a democracy IMHO. Editorial independence is under threat from the wealthy seeking to have influence over government policy. The decision of Gina Rinehart to gain a stake in Fairfax is the most recent example. Should we allow this to happen?

Disclosure: I have donated cash to GetUp! to campaign against the takeover.

[zaph]

staringclown, on 04 February 2012 - 11:15 PM, said:

Media moguls or corporate looters? Rinehart’s raid marks a changing of the guard



Vested interests controlling the media is not healthy in a democracy IMHO. Editorial independence is under threat from the wealthy seeking to have influence over government policy. The decision of Gina Rinehart to gain a stake in Fairfax is the most recent example. Should we allow this to happen?

Disclosure: I have donated cash to GetUp! to campaign against the takeover.

it makes good business sense. the only problem is she is camera shy. perhaps she could contract Clive palmer to do interviews, he's not camera shy, but certainly not a good public speaker either. unless Gina manages to public speak, then all the media ownership will amount to not much.

the dynasty certainly has a history of family feuds.

[sydney3000]

This is a non-story. Newspapers are dead. If Gina Rinehart was determined to direct the human race she would be wiser to fund a variety of brand new online media ventures. The more likely scenario is that Gina Rinehart is panicking because she realises that the future for her has only downside left. Once you own everything you can only lose. Diversification into anything but mining doesn't help much when the global economy's pending collapse looms.

[zaph]

sydney3000, on 05 February 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

This is a non-story. Newspapers are dead. If Gina Rinehart was determined to direct the human race she would be wiser to fund a variety of brand new online media ventures. The more likely scenario is that Gina Rinehart is panicking because she realises that the future for her has only downside left. Once you own everything you can only lose. Diversification into anything but mining doesn't help much when the global economy's pending collapse looms.

Gina is not diversifying her investments. she is buying a pr arm of her main business. she is buying an audience with the govt, or perhaps a whip for the govt.

newspapers are not dead, they are sick and the medicine is still in research. print media is still the cheapest (apart from TVC) form of advertising atm.

the future of print media is in mag, rather than news style format, with a touch of news each day. lift outs are the way of print media.

[sydney3000]

The rules changed in 2007. The people of the world now know everything is a scam. It doesn't matter what gets written in the papers because people no longer hope for a better outcome. Once hope of success is gone a con no longer works.

[staringclown]

zaph, on 05 February 2012 - 12:56 AM, said:

it makes good business sense. the only problem is she is camera shy. perhaps she could contract Clive palmer to do interviews, he's not camera shy, but certainly not a good public speaker either. unless Gina manages to public speak, then all the media ownership will amount to not much.

the dynasty certainly has a history of family feuds.

Apparently her private speaking makes up for the lack of public. She's sounds like a difficult woman. It's all hearsay of course but this is the internet after all. Clive Palmer. Don't start me.

Here is the video of Lord Monckton spelling out the evil media plan.

https://www.getup.or...hare-this-video

Quote

This is a non-story. Newspapers are dead. If Gina Rinehart was determined to direct the human race she would be wiser to fund a variety of brand new online media ventures. The more likely scenario is that Gina Rinehart is panicking because she realises that the future for her has only downside left. Once you own everything you can only lose. Diversification into anything but mining doesn't help much when the global economy's pending collapse looms.

Not quite dead yet I think. She's just spent 100 million on fairfax (which is also an online company) and I don't think you amass such a fortune because you're stupid. Admittedly she may not be buying in for the excellent investment potential. I'm with zaph - it's for the influence. She's not the worlds richest yet and she thinks she still has scope for improvement. Fairfax still has a readership and 150 years of good will.

If I thought that she would pump money into fairfax and build it's investigative journalism resources I'd be over the moon. If she wants to run the country she can join/start a political party and get herself voted in then she can run the country.

I don't want the country run by oligarchs. (More than it already is)

Of course this then begs the question of who should run the media? This is a good question. (Channelling Kevin) The answer is obviously the property industry.

[staringclown]

Quote

If I thought that she would pump money into fairfax and build it's investigative journalism resources I'd be over the moon.

Speaking of the devil. The guy from wotif.com has paid for a new website with a focus on investigative journalism. He has given a bunch of cash to the greens in the past so cannot be classed as politically neutral. He says that he will not have any editorial input which is good. The site will be run by journalists particularly ex ABC journalists (who may or may not be communists) so it will be interesting to see what sort of things they cover and how impartial they remain.


TheGlobalMail.org

[Mr Medved]

staringclown, on 05 February 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

Not quite dead yet I think. She's just spent 100 million on fairfax (which is also an online company) and I don't think you amass such a fortune because you're stupid.

Inheritance does not exclude stupidity. Just look at James Packer and Stevie Lew.

This post has been edited by Mr Medved: 06 February 2012 - 10:28 AM

[staringclown]

Mr Medved, on 06 February 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

Inheritance does not exclude stupidity. Just look at James Packer and Stevie Lew.

True but to build a company from 70 million to 10 billion though? That isn't luck.

[sydney3000]

staringclown, on 06 February 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

True but to build a company from 70 million to 10 billion though? That isn't luck.

Considering that it happens so rarely it may actually be luck.

[staringclown]

sydney3000, on 06 February 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

Considering that it happens so rarely it may actually be luck.

Gina Rinehart would eat you whole S3K and use your bones to pick her teeth.