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.
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]
Shit better not happen!
While I am against the AT&T/Time-Warner merger (and was also against the Comcast/NBC-Universal merger), I think this goes too far. The Press is part of the checks and balances of the government. There have been lots of bad press against all former Presidents, but the President didn't use his powers against them like this. This blatantly violates the First Amendment.https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/07/06/2255213/white-house-could-use-atttime-warner-deal-as-leverage-against-cnn#
Since the overturn of Citizens United, I'm really worried about corporations' well-being. AT&T only has a market cap of $222.95 billion, and little 'ol Time Warner is only worth $78.66 billion. How are they going to look out for their own interests in the same way that a real life citizen making $40k/year would?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Whether it's CNN or any other news organization, does it bother others when you read shit like this;
"The conservative news website attributed the information to "a source familiar with President Trump's thinking."
I AM conservative and I call bullshit on printing hearsay like this. Come on media, print what he says, not what others think he his thinking is like.
Not since the last one. And the one before that, and the one before that, and....
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.
On the one hand, Trump is a bit of a cry-bully and CNN can say anything they want.
On the other, when an "unnamed source" says that Trump said something mean to someone in the oval office and CNN covers it for five hours straight, you tend to wonder what the hell is going on. There's some crazy deal going on with Qatar that's just a *bit* more important, why aren't they covering that more?
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
This is a fallacy. Being (ethically) corrupt isn't a zero-sum pool. They can both be horrible at the same time. It's still an abuse of power even if you're doing it to someone reprehensible. Also: criticizing one for their actions is not an implicit endorsement of the other party.
Trump is going to bring the Mars to us!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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. 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. Yet it was bandied about like it was Trump's death sentence. Where are all the retractions? Three people at CNN fired? That's it? Bullshit. They just double down and go after the next fake story.
that same hairsplitting works on the 2nd amendment too. lets see how THAT works out...
Right wing nut jobs trying to pass themselves off as legitimate....
I'll take Obama for $1000 Alex
BS.
The video takes each clip entirely out of context. That alters Obama appears to be only focusing on.
Each conversation covered other media outlets, except for the last one, where George Stephanopolous kept prompting Obama to say "Fox News", which Obama avoided for the first few attempts.
The fact is, Fox News actually did broadcast anti-Obama pieces frequently, and even had "talking points" – specific phrases – for every talking head to repeat. . . an attempt at making something false believable if every reporter *cough* at Fox News repeated the same line. So, yes, your uncle who only watches Fox News would be un-debatable because logic** can never prevail against a mind which does not use it.
** Discussion in which only provable premises are allowed for use in the next step of the discussion thread.
AT&T is trying to merge with TW which is also part of Comcast. As if you didn't have choices before, now they'll have virtually all of the DSL, Cable and Wireless market as well as all the media companies that come along under one big corporation. I thought Ma Bell was split up to prevent these kinds of things.
It was.
Fortunately for me, as HOA president, I made sure that every unit (~100) was wired for FiOS, in addition to the existing telephone and cable. Verizon sold off its fiber-optic biz in my area to Frontier. Now we have actual market competition. (I know, it is likely brief.)
As evidence: Just last week, Frontier bumped all 50/50 Mbps clients to 100/100 Mbps. This was with no increase in monthly rates at all. I had anticipated this sort of thing, and opted to buy my home WiFi router –one capable of 300/300. In the home, between computers, we get that. To the outside world, it's 100/100 at the moment.
everyone who voted for either Hillary or Trump should be fucking shot.
Fuck off, pal. I voted for Clinton because she was one of the most qualified candidates in recent memory. This bullshit of equating the two persons is just insane.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
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
So a lot like the right wing press during the Clinton and Obama administrations then...
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
+5 insightful? TimeWarner Cable is not part of Comcast.