Thursday, July 01, 2010

Newsweek To Remain A Liberal Magazine... fear not, waiting-room denizens and septuagenarians!

So attached is the Washington Post to its liberal dogma that they are refusing to even consider bids from media conglomerates that have a conservative bent:

WITH a 5 p.m. Thursday deadline approaching for the final round of bids, at least two people were preparing to make offers for Newsweek while two others were told by the magazine’s owners that their bids would not be considered.

The Washington Post Company, which put the magazine up for sale in May after efforts to stem its financial losses failed, has rejected overtures from the owners of Newsmax, the monthly conservative magazine, and Thane Ritchie, an Illinois hedge fund manager, according to people familiar with the bidding who spoke anonymously because the process is intended to be confidential.

With no shortage of interested parties, the issue for the Post Company has become whether it can find a new owner that the company’s chairman and chief executive, Donald E. Graham, believes will be a suitable steward for the magazine.

That is the main reason the Post Company decided not to entertain offers from Newsmax or Mr. Ritchie, according to these people. The conservative political ideology of Newsmax’s chief executive, Christopher Ruddy, is at odds with the editorial bent of Newsweek, which strives to be apolitical in its news coverage though is often criticized as left-leaning.

And Mr. Ritchie, who unsuccessfully tried to buy the Sun Times Media Group last year, is viewed as more libertarian in his political views....

Wow. I wonder how much money the WaPo is willing to lose on this deal by strictly refusing to consider bids by suitors who are more ideologically diverse than they are?

In business circles, taking a lesser bid under these circumstances would be a sin, and perhaps a crime, especially as the object for sale is already some $50 million-plus in the red.

But perhaps there is another, "political" reason here, that goes beyond strict ideology. Consider:

With the failing state of the newspaper business and the mainstream media in general, their CEOs have been looking more and more frequently for a Washington bailout of their industry, one that would allow them to continue pushing their liberal viewpoint via an expired medium without having to be concerned about free market forces rejecting them.

Now, if the Post sold Newsweek to Newsmax, which then turned it into a high profile conservative megaphone, well...what would the Obama administration have to say about that, when the Washington Post executive board comes crawling to D.C., tin cup in hand? Something like, "No bailout for you!", perhaps.

Interesting to watch the effect of a thugocracy and crony capitalism in effect. The Washington Post is willing to lose money on a deal in order to sell their magazine to an organization that is guaranteed to be friendly to the party in power, so that they will have chips to cash in when it comes time to ask for the government to provide them with taxpayer dollars to continue running a media operations whose style and substance has been rejected by the public.

I think the phrase "free press", when it comes to America, no longer applies. But shockingly, and in a way that could not be readily foreseen, they have chosen to willingly submit themselves to government control - further, they are willing to even pre-censor themselves and their business operation in order to ingratiate themselves to the very people their duties call to keep in check.

I know this word has lost all meaning, Unbelievable.

No comments: