Slashdot Mirror
White House Could Use AT&T/Time Warner Deal As 'Leverage' Against CNN (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader shares an excerpt from a report via Ars Technica: AT&T seems to be on track to close its purchase of Time Warner Inc., but President Donald Trump's hatred of Time Warner property CNN could still be a "wild card" in the deal. Trump's feud with CNN was described yesterday in a New York Times article titled "The Network Against the Leader of the Free World." Within that article is one tidbit that could affect AT&T's proposed $85.4 billion purchase of Time Warner, which owns CNN and other media properties such as HBO and Turner Broadcasting System: "White House advisers have discussed a potential point of leverage over their adversary, a senior administration official said: a pending merger between CNN's parent company, Time Warner, and AT&T. Mr. Trump's Justice Department will decide whether to approve the merger, and while analysts say there is little to stop the deal from moving forward, the president's animus toward CNN remains a wild card."
Separately, The Daily Caller wrote today that Trump doesn't want the merger to be approved unless CNN President Jeff Zucker is fired. The conservative news website attributed the information to "a source familiar with President Trump's thinking." Zucker told the New York Times that the pending merger has not affected his journalistic or management decisions.
Separately, The Daily Caller wrote today that Trump doesn't want the merger to be approved unless CNN President Jeff Zucker is fired. The conservative news website attributed the information to "a source familiar with President Trump's thinking." Zucker told the New York Times that the pending merger has not affected his journalistic or management decisions.
Obama wouldn't try to stifle the free press.
I wouldn't be applauding. The executive branch shouldn't be using it's powers to extort favorable coverage or to carry out the president's personal vendettas.
Now here's an interesting question. Name a liberal president who would consider doing such a thing.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I'm always interested in the opinions of folks if any article, regardless of the media source, replaced Trump with Obama in the article.
[John]
I'm no fan of Obama, but I don't think he ever did anything remotely similar to this, (allegedly) threatening to kill a merger unless a news network stops criticizing him. The most he ever did was threaten to exclude Fox from the press pool at an event (and then backed down).
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Right wing nut jobs trying to pass themselves off as legitimate....
WTF? are you kidding me? 1) Yes they did 2) It is their job to report on bad shit our leaders do 3) Retaliation against a free press from the white house is NOT ok.
Trump wants CEO of CNN fired.
Obama FIRED the CEO of GM, Rich Wagoneer.
What was your dipshit Obama suckup point again?
That Obama actually DID what you are complaining that Trump says should be done and you were fine with it?
Not even close to being an apt comparison.
...General Motors was financially vulnerable before the automotive industry crisis of 2008-2009. In 2005 the company posted a loss of US$10.6 billion. In 2006, its attempts to obtain U.S. government financing to support its pension liabilities and also to form commercial alliances with Nissan and Renault failed. For fiscal year 2007, GM's losses for the year were US$38.7 billion, and sales for the following year dropped by 45%. On November 7, 2008 General Motors reported it had projected it would run out of cash around mid-2009 without a combination of government funding, a merger, or sales of assets. Ten days later General Motors representatives, along with executives from Ford and Chrysler testified about their need for financial aid at a congressional hearing in Washington D.C. All three companies were unsuccessful in their attempts to obtain legislation to authorize U.S. government aid, and were invited to draft a new action plan for the sustainability of the industry. On December 2, 2008, General Motors submitted its "Restructuring Plan for Long-Term Viability" to the Senate Banking Committee and House of Representatives Financial Services Committee. Congress declined to act, but in December 2008 the Bush administration provided a "bridge loan" to General Motors with the requirement of a revised business plan.It said it needed $4.6 billion in loans within weeks, from the $18 billion it had already requested, and an additional $12 billion in financial support in order to stave off bankruptcy. On Feb. 26, 2009, General Motors announced that its cash reserves were down to $14 billion at the end of 2008. G.M. lost $30.9 billion, or $53.32 a share, in 2008 and spent $19.2 billion of its cash reserves. Mr. Wagoner met with President Obama’s auto task force, and the company said that it could not survive much longer without additional government loans. On the March 30, 2009 deadline President Barack Obama declined to provide financial aid to General Motors, and requested that General Motors produce credible plans, saying that the company's proposals had avoided tough decisions, and that Chapter 11 bankruptcy appeared the most promising way to reduce its debts, by allowing the courts to compel bondholders and trade unions into settlements. GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner was also forced to resign. ...
3/30/2009 - Why Rick Wagoner Had To Go: The fall of General Motors Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner was unavoidable. There is no way President Obama could hand out more billions to a management with a practically unblemished record of failure. Yes, it’s certainly good news; the Wagoner management was never going to turn around General Motors . Never. After all, Wagoner has been chief executive since 2000 and head of North American auto operations six more years before that. His predecessor and mentor, Jack Smith, became chief in 1992. GM lost market share in the U.S. in all but a couple of those years. The losses in Wagoner’s last four years topped $80 billion. ...
He hasn't actually done what is stated in this article. Unnamed "White House advisers" and "source familiar with President Trump’s thinking". Yes, it is common for news agencies to report based on anonymous sources, but given the lack of journalistic integrity that has plagued coverage of Trump, shit like this has no place in headlines without verifiable sources. When I see any story about anybody that has it's sole source for such a damning quote being an anonymous source with nothing else to back it up, I immediately dismiss it.
Which, in the case of this administration, would have lead to you dismissing a lot of accurate news reports. Anonymous sources should be treated with caution yes, but not immediate dismissal.
Doesn't matter if it's Trump, Obama, someone I love, or someone I hate. Literally none of the Trump connections to Russia in the formerly "earth shattering" Russia Dossier have been proven true.
Which is why CNN only reported on the existence of the dossier, they didn't break it.
Yet it was bandied about like it was Trump's death sentence. Where are all the retractions?
Because there's nothing to retract, it hasn't been falsified. Of course the explosive claims are hard to falsify, which is one of the reasons CNN, despite having access to the dossier, deliberately held back the actual contents (until Buzzfeed broke them, an act most media organizations disagreed with).
Three people at CNN fired? That's it? Bullshit. They just double down and go after the next fake story.
CNN published one legitimately inaccurate story, and fired everyone involved.
Can you imagine if Breitbart or even Fox News was held to that standard? Would Sean Spicer even last through a single press conference?
I stole this Sig
+5 insightful? TimeWarner Cable is not part of Comcast.