• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании1394
      • Показать ещё
      Люди299
      • Показать ещё
      Разное447
      • Показать ещё
      Издания250
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации49
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы483
      • Показать ещё
      Формат32
      Показатели22
      • Показать ещё
      Сферы2
News Corp
News Corp
News Corporation (NYSE: NWS) — международный медиахолдинг подконтрольный Руперту Мердоку, который владеет, в частности, кинокомпанией 20th Century Fox, телеканалами Fox News, спутниковыми DTH операторами BSkyB, Sky Deutschland, Sky Italia, Foxtel, информационным агентством Dow Jones ( ...

News Corporation (NYSE: NWS) — международный медиахолдинг подконтрольный Руперту Мердоку, который владеет, в частности, кинокомпанией

20th Century Fox,

телеканалами Fox News,

спутниковыми DTH операторами BSkyB, Sky Deutschland, Sky Italia, Foxtel,

информационным агентством Dow Jones (включая службу Factiva),

а также газетами

The Wall Street Journal,

The Times,

The Sun,

New York Post.

 

В период предвыборной кампании поддерживает Республиканскую партию США.

22 июля Руперт Мердок объявил о своем уходе с поста директора двух компаний, входящих в News Corporation, - News International и Times Newspapers Holdings Limited. Причиной отставки называется предстоящая реструктуризация корпорации.

В 2013 году было создано 21st Century Fox а News Corporation сменил логотип. Вики.

 

...подконтрольная компании Вангард (?)

 

Сайт

Развернуть описание Свернуть описание
Выбор редакции
22 июня, 23:14

Press Gaggle by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Sanders

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room 1:26 P.M. EDT MS. SANDERS:  Good afternoon.  This morning, the President continued his week of events highlighting technology and how it will continue to contribute to the economy of the future by bringing leaders in the industry to the White House to discuss emerging technologies.  The President met with them after they participated in working groups separated by topic -- unmanned aircraft systems, 5G wireless connectivity, and financing -- where he saw firsthand how these important technologies are reshaping modern life. Throughout this week, the administration has been putting the spotlight on the technologies that will improve the lives of every American, from cell towers as small as pizza boxes, to data analysis that helps our farmers and ranchers get their biggest yields, and having productive discussions with the industry on how government can both help them get there and take advantage of these incredible achievements for the American people. Tomorrow, the President will focus on an issue that can have important responsibility to address, and that's caring for our nation's veterans.  The President will be signing the VA Accountability Act, an important step in fulfilling the commitment he made when he signed an executive order on accountability for VA employees who fail our veterans. As the President has said many times, we must never tolerate substandard care for our nation's heroes, and this bill will provide the VA with the tools it needs to improve the care and services that veterans receive.  And he's glad to be signing it tomorrow morning. This morning, the Senate released the discussion draft of its healthcare bill.  The President is pleased to see the process moving forward swiftly in Congress, and he looks forward to seeing a finalized bill on his desk so that we can finally repeal and replace Obamacare before it completely collapses. Just yesterday, another insurer announced that it's pulling out of Obamacare exchanges.  Anthem is leaving the exchanges in Indiana -- the state in which the company was actually born and is currently headquartered -- and also in Wisconsin. Finally, I want to welcome Alex Pfeiffer to his first White House briefing.  Alex is young, so he might need some help from a few of his colleagues to help him with this process.  And with that, ladies and gentleman, I'll take your questions. Kevin. Q    Thank you, Sarah.  I'm just curious about the President's revelation by way of Twitter that he has no knowledge of any tapes -- didn't have any tapes, doesn't have any possession of any tapes.  What can you tell the American people about why he decided to sort of make the inference, at least at some point, that maybe there would be tapes? MS. SANDERS:  Look, I think the President's statement via Twitter today is extremely clear.  I don't have anything to add beyond the statement itself. Q    Can I follow up really quickly on the wall?  I was at the rally last night.  The President seemed to get great reaction to the idea that the wall was moving forward.  And he mentioned the possibility of solar as a means to not only pay for the wall itself but also to enhance the wall.  Can you sort of help me unpack that idea?  Is this something that he’s been kicking around for quite some time?  He said it was the first time he’d made it publicly known. MS. SANDERS:  I think it’s something he’s considering.  It's certainly nothing final, but just an idea that he is considering and reviewing.  Nothing more than that at this point. Q    I have a healthcare question but I just want to follow up on Kevin’s questions on the tapes situation.  I get that the tweet is speaking for itself, but I’m curious why it took so long, 41 days, for this to be laid to rest, and whether the President is recording any Oval Office conversations. MS. SANDERS:  You guys asked for an answer; he gave you one.  He said he would have it to you by the end of this week, which he did.  And beyond timing of that, I can’t really speak anything further. Q    And any Oval Office recordings? MS. SANDERS:  I’m not aware of anything.  I think his statement here is pretty clear. Q    But I’m asking more generally, just not specifically to Comey, but, again, he -- MS. SANDERS:  Not that I’m aware of, Hallie. Q    So no Oval Office recordings that you’re aware of? MS. SANDERS:  Not that I’m aware of. Q    And then on healthcare, I just want to know a couple of things on that.  Is the President confident that he will have something to sign in the next few weeks? MS. SANDERS:  I don’t think we’re as focused on the timeline as we are on the final product.  We’re looking for the best bill possible, and we’re going to continue being part of technical assistance and providing that with both House and Senate members as we work to get the best bill we can. Q    And just on that final product, the President -- this Senate bill, by analysis so far, cuts Medicaid.  It doesn’t look like it will cut deductibles for folks.  Does that have enough heart?  Does the President think that is a bill that is not mean? MS. SANDERS:  I haven’t had that conversation but I do know that he made a statement earlier that said this is a negotiation, and so he’s going to continue that process with both House and Senate members and his administration until we get the best bill that we can, and that will be the one that he signs. Q    So he's open to changes. MS. SANDERS:  John. Q    Sarah, what was the President doing with this?  I mean, he let it go on for 41 days, as Hallie referred to.  That tweet 41 days ago seemed to be, you know, a very kind of ominous message to Comey -- “he better hope there are no tapes.”  And then he was asked repeatedly during the intervening weeks whether or not the tapes existed.  You were asked many times.  Sean was asked.  Why the game?  What was he doing? MS. SANDERS:  I don’t know there was a game.  Again, he’s answered the question.  He gave a timeline and the frame that -- which he would, and he did that.  He said by the end of this week and he’s done that. Q    Do you have a sense for -- what was behind the original suggestion from him 41 days ago that there may be tapes? MS. SANDERS:  Look, I think it was pretty clear in that original statement that he hoped for his sake.  And that was, I think, the very intention.  And he’s laid out his position on whether or not he personally was involved in that in his tweet today. Q    Thank you, Sarah.  Back to the original tweet, did the President intend to threaten James Comey with that tweet? MS. SANDERS:  Not that I’m aware of.  I don’t think so. Q    And so why -- again, why was he compelled for the deadline to be this week, to clear it up? MS. SANDERS:  I mean, that was -- has been laid out, I believe, also by Congress that they wanted an answer by the end of this week.   Peter. Q    Sarah, if I can, the tweet ultimately, we know, according to James Comey, led him to share the memos publicly, which led to the hiring of the special counsel, Robert Mueller, which ultimately led to the reports that the President himself is being investigated for possible obstruction of justice.  Does the President regret the tweet? MS. SANDERS:  I don’t think so.   David. Q    Then broadly, he said -- you can’t say whether there are any Oval Office recordings, but he did say that “[I] did not make, and do not have, any such recordings.”  Did he ever have recordings of conversations with James Comey? MS. SANDERS:  Again, not that I’m aware of. Q    Let me ask about healthcare, if I can, quickly.  On healthcare, the President said when he first became a candidate after coming down the escalator, he tweeted, “The Republicans who want to cut SS & Medicaid are wrong. A robust economy will Make America Great Again!”  So if cutting Medicaid was wrong when he was a candidate, why is it right in the new Republican Senate bill? MS. SANDERS:  I don’t believe that the President has specifically weighed in that it’s right to cut Medicaid.  I know one of the big parts of discussion is giving states flexibility.  And again, the President hasn’t weighed in specifically on any specific measure in this bill, and, as he said earlier, this is a negotiation between the House and the Senate and we’re going to play a part in that. Q    Does the President still believe there should be no -- MS. SANDERS:  I’m sorry, guys, can you -- one at a time. Q    Does the President still believe, as he did as a candidate, that there should be no cuts to Medicaid? MS. SANDERS:  I haven’t had a specific conversation to see if there is an update to that, but I do know that he wants to protect that as much as possible. David. Q    What specifically will the White House be doing with the Senate as this healthcare moves forward?  You mentioned technical assistance.  What does that entail? MS. SANDERS:  I think -- I know members of OMB, Treasury, and certainly members of the HHS and senior staff have been involved in the process.  They’re going to continue to do that.  This has been one of those things where, from the very beginning, we’ve wanted all the stakeholders involved.  And we’re going to continue to do that until we get the best piece of legislation.  Q    Will the President be involved, or is he going to wait for the conference committee, which, presumably, will -- MS. SANDERS:  I know he’s been involved by having members of his administration -- I think it would be hard to deny the fact they’re an extension of the administration when you have Cabinet secretaries and senior-level staffers that are in meetings and conversations regarding the legislation. Q    Thank you, Sarah.  Twelve days ago, the President announced a press conference in two weeks on his entire ISIS strategy.  Can we expect a press conference in the coming days? MS. SANDERS:  I’ll have to get back to you on a specific date for when that might be. Q    Thanks, Sarah.  I wanted to ask you just -- about some of the reaction from the left that we’ve seen this week.   MS. SANDERS:  I’m sure it’s friendly. Q    Well, our microphones caught a woman who was dragged off from McConnell’s office this morning.  She was screaming, “My child is going to die, and my family is going to die, but they don’t give a damn about it.”  Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut said this week, “The Democrats are going to lie down on the train tracks” to stop this bill from passing.  What do you make of all that?  What’s your reaction to that? MS. SANDERS:  I certainly think that not just Republicans, but I think any American would certainly not support something that allows a child to die.  And the goal is, again, to look for the best healthcare possible that actually provides care -- not just gives insurance but actually provides care.  That’s been a goal from the administration on the front end, and we’re looking for ways to do that. Right now, we know Obamacare is not sustainable.  It is literally collapsing under itself.  Providers are pulling out every single day out of states.  We are down to multiple counties that don’t have providers.  And we are working day in, day out to make sure we have the best piece of legislation possible. If Democrats really cared, they would try to be involved in the process.  They said from day one that they didn’t want to be in the conversation if it had anything to do with repealing and replacing Obamacare.  I think that it’s sad that they’ve chosen to play partisan politics instead of trying to have a seat at the table. Matthew. Q    Thanks, Sarah.  The intelligence community has concluded that the DNC hack was part of a Russian plot to disrupt and influence the 2016 election.  I’m wondering, after the President’s tweet this morning, why does he continue to dispute that finding and call the hack a “hoax”?  And then a follow-up, if I may. MS. SANDERS:  I believe that the President said even back in January -- and I’ll read the statement from then -- that he thinks it’s a disgrace, thinks it’s an absolute disgrace.  “As far as hacking, I think it was Russia, but I think we also get hacked by other countries and other people.”   I think he’s made it clear and been consistent that while everyone agrees the result of the election wasn’t influenced, he thinks that it probably was Russia.  And I think that regardless, President Trump has made it clear that we have to protect the integrity of the electoral system.  That’s one of the reasons he’s a strong advocate for voter I.D. laws and why he’s also put in place a voter election commission -- integrity commission chaired by the Vice President, which I think shows the level of importance he’s placed on that to make sure that the integrity of all of our elections, particularly moving forward, are as sound and correct as possible. Q    So then -- thank you.  Just a broader follow-up on that.  So like I said, this morning he called the hack a “hoax.”  He hasn’t accepted the popular vote tallies.  You guys have been touting jobs numbers that he used to call “fake.”  You won’t tell us where he stands on climate science.  So I’m wondering, why does the President choose to accept certain facts, but dispute and reject others? MS. SANDERS:  I’m not aware that he accepts certain facts.  I think we accept all the facts. Q    But like the popular vote totals, climate science.  You still haven’t told us where he stands on that. MS. SANDERS:  Look, the President won the election.  I don’t know why we have to continue debating this.    Q    I'm not debating that point. MS. SANDERS:  The Democrats lost because they didn’t have a message.  They had a poor candidate.  We had a message.  And the President won.  I’m not really sure what fact we’re disputing here.  There’s only one winner and he was it. Jeff. Q    Sarah, going back to the tweet, it happened before this gaggle started.  Is the President concerned that surveillance is being conducted against him at the White House? MS. SANDERS:  I don’t know specifically if there’s a direct concern.  I do know that he’s concerned with the number of leaks that do come out of our intelligence community.  I think all Americans should be concerned with that. Q    He did make clear in that tweet that he didn’t have any recordings, but he raised the prospect that there -- somebody else might have them. MS. SANDERS:  Again, I think that it’s very clear what he meant there, but as far as surveillance -- Q    But who else would have them, I guess? MS. SANDERS:  -- I wouldn’t know, Jeff.   Mike. Q    Two questions.  First on healthcare, if I can.  Since the President won’t be weighing in specifically on any of the details of the Senate bill, can you help explain what his role will be exactly during at least this Senate phase of the process?  Will he be whipping for votes to pass the Senate bill, even if he doesn’t necessarily agree with everything that’s in it, just to try to advance the process along?   MS. SANDERS:  We’ll keep you updated as his involvement takes place.  Again, right now, I know that he’s got a large number of members of his administration that are involved in the process and continuing in those conversations. Q    Sarah, another question, if I can.  The President is meeting today with the International Olympic Committee.  Can you talk a little bit about what that meeting is for, and will he use it as a chance to lobby for Los Angeles’s bid for the Olympics? MS. SANDERS:  I know he’s certainly supportive of the committee, and we plan to have a read out after the meeting.  I don’t want to get head of that before it takes place. Q    By the committee, you mean the bid?  Or the -- MS. SANDERS:  I mean, obviously, the committee itself -- and again, we'll have a readout for you after the meeting takes place.  I won't get ahead of that. Q    Sarah, yeah, listen, I want to -- if you don’t mind, I want to go back to what Jeff was asking you a moment ago.  I know you say this tweet is clear, but it talks about recently reported electronic surveillance, intercepts, unmasking.  Is that activity that is being carried out by the CIA, the FBI, or other U.S. law enforcement agencies?  Is that what his reference is to? MS. SANDERS:  I think those are questions you'd have to ask those law enforcement agencies, whether or not they're engaging in those activities. Q    But it's the President who has tweeted this.  The President is the one who has actually put this information out. MS. SANDERS:  I think there's public record that talks about surveillance, that talks about unmasking.  We know those practices take place.  I think if you're asking about specific instances, you'd have to refer to those agencies. Q    Can I ask one follow-up on China?  The President tweeted obviously the other day that the Chinese had failed to change the situation with respect to North Korea.  I just wonder, in light of that, given how he had put China at the center of his North Korea strategy, what the next steps are.  How does the U.S. bring pressure to bear on North Korea, if the Chinese are not willing to help? MS. SANDERS:  Look, I think the President has been extremely clear on this process.  Of course, he hopes to work with China and continue to work with them to put pressure on North Korea.  But if that doesn’t work, then the President has been clear that he will do whatever it takes to protect America. Q    Are there any more details on that?  Any details on what that would be? MS. SANDERS:  The President is never going to outline his strategy in a public way, but I think he's been clear that he would certainly do what it takes to protect American citizens. Q    Thank you, Sarah.  Two questions.  First on healthcare.  The Senate wants to vote in less than a week, or in about a week.  Can you say whether the President supports the bill as it is right now?  Because we don’t know how many changes can be made in the course of a week. Q    Again, I think he wants to bring the stakeholders to the table, have those conversations, and we'll get back to you as we go through that process.  But I think right now we're in a negotiation process. Jordan. Q    Does the President think that the process on healthcare is moving too fast then, if he wants to take time and talk to people?  I mean, they're talking about having a vote next week.  I mean, this may be like the -- MS. SANDERS:  I mean, we've been talking about reforming healthcare for a number of years.  I don’t think it's moving too fast when it's been nearly eight years. Q    Sarah, if the healthcare bill changes from what it is now, by the time it gets to the President's desk, will the President support a bill that funds Planned Parenthood? MS. SANDERS:  I'm not sure.  I'd have to get back to you on that question. Q    Hasn't he that he wouldn’t support a bill that does?  MS. SANDERS:  He has.  I would have to get back to you on his specific mentality of the bill. Q    Well, let me ask you this:  If the bill allows the use of healthcare tax credits to buy coverage for abortion, would he support that? MS. SANDERS:  Not that I'm aware of.  But again, I think it would have to be in the context of the larger legislation.  I can't speak to a hypothetical on one piece of the bill. Q    I wanted to ask more about the China question that Mark Landler brought up.  Can you tell us more when you say the President will do what it takes with regard to North Korea?  So that would mean a military option.  Can you tell us more -- MS. SANDERS:  I think he's said all along that we're not taking any options off the table, but we're not going to broadcast what those might be. Hunter. Q    Thank you, Sarah.  The intelligence community has been pretty unified and adamant that the Russian interference in the election was a very real and serious issue.  Yet the President just called it a "Dem hoax."  Does he believe that members of the intelligence community are colluding with the Democrats, or did collude with the Democrats?  And what would he do about that? MS. SANDERS:  I believe the reference in the hoax is about the fact that they're trying to delegitimize his win in the election process, and less about the hack itself.  I think he's said several times now that he believes that Russia was part of it, but also, some of those same members have said that they don’t think it influenced the election.  And I think that's what a lot of this process is about; it's about trying to make excuses for why Democrats lost.  And the President, I think, has been pretty clear on where he stands with that. Zeke. Q    Sarah you just directed Mark's -- his questions about the President's tweet earlier to the various intelligence agencies.  Is the President accusing elements of the U.S. government of wiretapping the Oval Office? MS. SANDERS:  That's not what I said.  I said if he was asking about specific instances, he would have to ask them. Q    So, specifically, does the President believe he's being surveilled in the Oval Office? MS. SANDERS:  Not that I'm aware of. Q    Why is he tweeting about it? MS. SANDERS:  Because he was asked if he had tapes, and he was answering that question. John. Q    Thank you, Sarah.  A question and a follow-up.  In his speech last night, the President said that several of the major news corporations are not telling the truth to the American people.  Are you willing to name any of those corporations?  And also, are you keeping a list and following corporations that may not be telling the truth? MS. SANDERS:  I think there are quite a few instances where there have been false reports out there, and I would be happy when I'm not standing up here to help provide a list to you, John. Q    All right.  And the other thing is, are you keeping this list ongoing? MS. SANDERS:  I don’t have like a folder on my computer for it.  But I certainly think we've got some knowledge of very specific instances that have taken place. Q    Are you going to release them? MS. SANDERS:  I'll let you know. John. Q    Thanks a lot, Sean -- Sarah.  Were you given a heads up in any context -- MS. SANDERS:  We look pretty different.  (Laughter.)  But, you know.   Q    It's off-camera. MS. SANDERS:  Hey, John, if you're looking for instances of fake news, there's a good one for you.  (Laughter.)  I'm Sarah. Q    Were you given a heads up about the President's tweet? MS. SANDERS:  Yes. Q    And was the General Counsel given an opportunity to vet what the President tweeted out? MS. SANDERS:  I'm not sure.  I'd have to double-check on that.    Q    Sarah, the President talked last night about Governor Branstad going to China to become the ambassador.  Is it consistent with the President's pledge to drain the swamp that he's giving so many of these first wave of ambassadorships to political supporters and campaign donors? MS. SANDERS:  Look, I think it's pretty traditional that you would have somebody supportive of you and your agenda to go out and be an ambassador to speak on behalf of the administration.  And Terry Branstad is somebody who has, I think, some of the best qualifications that you could have to send there.  He's got a personal relationship with senior-level members of the Chinese administration, as well as a very strong understanding of trade practices given his background.  And I think he's a perfect fit for that role. Alex. Q    Is legal status for DACA beneficiaries on the table?  Has the White House conducted its review of the program? MS. SANDERS:  As of right now, that's still under review and I don’t have any announcements on the specifics of the program at this time. Q    Bloomberg reported that the President first raised the prospect of tapes strategically to make sure that Comey told the truth.  Is that your understanding of the President's motivation for tweeting about it?  And does he feel it was effective? MS. SANDERS:  I'm sorry?  Can you speak -- I can't hear -- Q    Do you want me to repeat the whole thing? MS. SANDERS:  Yeah, sorry.  No, the air -- It's hard to hear. Q    Bloomberg first reported that the President first raised the prospect of tapes strategically to make sure that Comey told the truth.  Is that your understanding of the President's motive for tweeting that?  And does he feel it was effective? MS. SANDERS:  I certainly think that the President would hope that the former director would tell the truth.  But I think that it was more about raising the question of doubt in general.   Thanks, guys. END  1:47 P.M. EDT   

21 июня, 16:22

Why it is Good Idea to Hold Zillow Group (ZG) Stock for Now

Zillow Group Inc. (ZG) is one such stock, which investors need to hold on to if they are looking to reap long-term benefits.

20 июня, 23:00

Will Strategic Efforts Lead Publishing Stocks to Growth?

Will Strategic Efforts Lead Publishing Stocks to Growth?

16 июня, 13:00

Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch: inside the billionaire bromance

Trump has been good business for the media mogul, but their association goes back decades and stems from one thing: ‘These men value only power’The alliance between Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch has never been stronger. In April, the Australian-born media mogul topped the New York Times’ list of Trump’s key advisers outside the White House, identified as someone the president speaks to “on the phone every week”. Last month the paper revised that upward to “almost every day”, although the White House denies this.At a recent speech in New York to mark a second world war battle in which the US fought alongside Australia, Trump was welcomed on stage by the News Corp chief. Continue reading...

14 июня, 09:51

Why Is News Corp (NWSA) Up 5.1% Since the Last Earnings Report?

News Corp (NWSA) reported earnings 30 days ago. What's next for the stock? We take a look at earnings estimates for some clues.

Выбор редакции
13 июня, 19:36

Russian courts sentence protesters arrested at anti-corruption rallies

Rights group says 1,700 people detained in Moscow and St Petersburg during protests called by opposition leader Alexei NavalnyRussian courts have started to hand down jail terms to demonstrators arrested at a series of anti-corruption protests across the country on Monday.Several protesters in Moscow and St Petersburg were on Tuesday sentenced to 15 days in jail, including Ilya Yashin, the opposition leader and political partner of Boris Nemtsov, who was murdered in 2015. Continue reading...

Выбор редакции
13 июня, 12:01

"Человек-паук" рассказал о своей боязни пауков

Исполнитель роли Человека-паука Том Холланд признался, что терпеть не может пауков. Об этом сообщает News Corp. — Они мерзкие, они просто меня пугают, — рассказал актёр. — Чем больше меня спрашивают об этом, тем больше я боюсь. Холланд поделился, что у него вызывают ужас рассказы об австралийских пауках-охотниках. — Друг моего отца живёт в Австралии, и он рассказывал, что там живут пауки, которые забираются в автомобили и прячутся в солнцезащитном козырьке... И потом, когда ты его открываешь во время езды, — о боже, это напугало бы меня до полусмерти, — рассказал актёр. "Человек-паук: Возвращение домой" выходит в российский прокат 6 июля. Том Холланд — уже третий актёр, исполняющий роль этого супергероя на большом экране. До него костюм Человека-паука носили Тоби Магуайр и Эндрю Гарфилд.

10 июня, 21:18

В сверхдержаве тоже воруют: губернатора Нью-Йорка заподозрили в коррупции

Мемуары губернатора штата Нью-Йорк Эндрю Куомо, изданные в 2014 году издательством "HarperCollins" (дочерней структурой "News Corp", в которую входит также канал "Fox News"), могут стать причиной громкого коррупционного скандала после того, как стали известны подробности представленной чиновником декларации о доходах за прошлый год.Согласно этому документу, его заработок от розничной продажи собственного труда под названием "Возможно все: неудачи и успехи в политике и жизни" в 2016 году составил свыше $218 тыс. Однако, как стало известно "The Buffalo News", за последние три года издательство перечислило на счета Куомо в общей сложности $783 тыс. - при том, что за все это время в магазинах было реализовано всего лишь 3200 экземпляров книги. Но в отчетностях руководителя региона за 2014 и 2015 годы задекларирован нулевой доход по статье "книжные продажи" - следовательно, авторские отчисления с каждой реализованной единицы товара в итоге составили почти $245. Это выглядит довольно удивительно, тем более учитывая тот факт, что актуальная стоимость данного издания на сайте онлайн-сервиса "Amazon.com" едва превышает отметку в $13.Представитель Куомо в интервью "International Business Times" пояснил, что сумма оплаты со стороны книгоиздателя соответствовала той, что была прописана в договоре с автором - представители "HarperCollins" отказались давать комментарии, сославшись на запрет обсуждать финансовые вопросы со стороны руководства, а журналистский запрос в адрес самой "News Corp" и вовсе остался без ответа. Между тем, крупнейший медиахолдинг давно имеет собственные интересы на территории штата, будучи официально зарегистрированным в базе данных региона в качестве т.н. лобби-клиента в декабре 2016 года. Основатель и владелец корпорации Руперт Мердок был тесно связан с возглавлявшим Нью-Йорк в 80-90-х гг. прошлого века отцом нынешнего губернатора штата Марио Куомо, а подотчетные ему СМИ всегда лоббировали выгодные для бизнеса местных чиновников законопроекты. Учитывая целую череду сексуальных скандалов, связанных с ветераном политической журналистики ведущим обозревателем "Fox News" Биллом О'Рейли, можно констатировать, что репутации "News Corp" в последние годы нанесен значительный ущерб.(http://usapress.net/prois...)

10 июня, 16:43

Bob Carr and the possible Chinese spies

Last week Four Corners - the premier news program of the Australian Broadcasting Commission ran a story about the influence of the Chinese Communist Party in Australia.Some of the story was obvious - for instance how Chinese students are coopted to drown out rallies by Falun Gong or other opponents of the CCP. A typical story involves a CCP figure visiting Australia, a bunch of human rights rallies and hundreds of Chinese students bussed to the rally with the intention of overwhelming regime opponents.A Chinese student involved in organising these rallies was interviewed. She made it clear that the embassy helped. Moreover it was clear there was social pressure (or worse) on students to conform - and that non-conformity had a negative effect on the family back home.--But the more interesting part of the story was how these sudden billionaire Chinese businessman (including businessmen who hung out with spies) were giving large donations to Australian institutions and thus getting close to politicians. (Universities were recipients as well as political parties...)And that some of these businessmen - liked hanging out with politicians (and sometimes paid their legal expenses). And then after having received a benefit the said politician expressed views on the South China Sea contrary to the Australian Government).This largess crossed party lines. Both sides of politicians had ex-politicians on what were some very generous consulting gigs.One of these businessmen gave money to the Australian Chinese Relations Institute - an organisation headed by Bob Carr - a former Premier of my home State (New South Wales) and a former Foreign Minister of Australia.The implication was that Bob Carr (and his institute) was in some sense compromised.====I have always liked Bob Carr. He was the New South Wales Environment Minister when I was in my twenties - and I thought he was great. I still do.So when invited to attend a talk sponsored by ACRI I jumped at the chance. Ignoring the usual advice that it is not a good idea to meet your heroes (especially if they are politicians) I rocked up full of excitement.Here is the flyer...When I got there I got a fabulously naïve talk about how various Chinese businessmen making huge waves in Australia were independent businessmen and not in any way arms of the Chinese government. (This includes people who were trying to buy ports near military bases in Northern Australia.)The naiveté was amazing. Some of these newly minted billionaires career went roughly as follows:a). Follow dad into the Peoples' Liberation Army (where he is a senior general)b). Retire in your twentiesc). Start an import/export business. Make a quick 15 million.d). Invest that in a huge land business. Turn that into a quick billion.e). At the age of 35 turn up in another country and throw half that money round buying strategically important assets.But these businessmen were in no way affiliated with the CCP.Whatever: I left thinking I was born on a Monday - but not last Monday.(But I was well satisfied with the drinks and canapés...)--Anyway Bob Carr is in The Australian (Murdoch's national newspaper in Australia) dissing the whole Four Corners story. You can read his defence. It didn't go very near how his own organisation might or might not be compromised.Go on. Read it.I think he would be better leaving things alone.But as he hasn't I thought I might just put the document circulated that night up for all to read. Maybe the China experts here can tell me whether this is merely naïve (which would be my normal guess) or directly paid for by the CCP.Here is the link.As Bob Carr has chosen Murdoch's network to defend his benefactors maybe I should just end with the most famous News Corp slogan: I report, you decide.John

10 июня, 08:53

В сверхдержаве тоже воруют: губернатора Нью-Йорка заподозрили в коррупции

Мемуары губернатора штата Нью-Йорк Эндрю Куомо, изданные в 2014 году издательством «HarperCollins» (дочерней структурой «News Corp», в которую входит также канал «Fox News»), могут стать причиной громкого коррупционного скандала после того, как стали известны подробности представленной чиновником декларации о доходах за прошлый год.

09 июня, 23:43

Fox News to reorganize its website under new editor

The renewed focus on the website comes just weeks after the network announced a complete redesign of Fox News' New York City newsroom and studios.

Выбор редакции
09 июня, 12:37

Boohoo co-founder sells £80m in shares as he reveals 'supersite' plan

Online fashion chain reveals first-quarter sales surge and says £50m share listing will help pay for 600,000 sq ft warehouseThe co-founder of Boohoo.com has cashed in on the fast-growing popularity of the online fashion group by selling more than £80m in shares.Mahmud Kamani and his siblings Rabia Kamani and Nurez Kamani sold a total of 36.6m shares. The Manchester-based retailer also raised £50m through the placing of 22.7m new shares priced at 220p. Continue reading...

Выбор редакции
05 июня, 14:46

Google поможет пользователям Chrome избавиться от рекламы

Компания Google планирует внедрить в свой браузер Chrome блокировщик «некачественной рекламы». Сообщается, что новая функция избавит пользователей даже от той рекламы, которая обслуживается самим браузером. При этом решать, какие объявления являются качественными, а какие – нет, будет группа, созданная Google, Facebook, News Corp и The Washington Post, пишут «Вести». В первую очередь Chrome будет блокировать автовоспроизводящиеся рекламные ролике и рекламу, которая занимает весь экран.

05 июня, 11:43

Обзор финансово-экономической прессы: По делу о теракте в Лондоне задержаны еще несколько человек

DW По делу о теракте в Лондоне задержаны еще несколько человек Британская полиция в понедельник, 5 июня, сообщила о задержании еще нескольких человек по делу о теракте в Лондоне. Сейчас их допрашивают. Полиция продолжает обыски по двум адресам в лондонских районах Ньюэм и Баркинг. Ранее стало известно, что в рамках расследования были задержаны 12 человек в районе Баркинг. В ночь на воскресенье, 4 июня, неизвестные на фургоне наехали на пешеходов на Лондонском мосту. После этого они продолжили движение до близлежащего рынка Боро. Там трое мужчин, вооруженных ножами, вышли из автомобиля и начали нападать на прохожих. В результате теракта погибли семь человек, около 50 были ранены. Прибывшие на место событий полицейские застрелили всех троих нападавших. Позднее появились сообщения, что ответственность за нападение взяла на себя террористическая группировка "Исламское государство" (ИГ). РБК Всемирный банк сохранил прогноз роста мировой экономики на уровне 2,7% Всемирный банк (ВБ), как и в январе, оставил прогноз роста мировой экономики на 2017 год на уровне 2,7%. Об этом говорится в опубликованном на сайте банка сообщении. Рост мировой экономики эксперты ВБ, как уточняется в пресс-релизе, связали с «возобновлением роста [экономики] в странах с формирующимся рынком», а также в «развивающихся странах, относящихся к экспортерам сырьевых товаров». Кроме того, это, по данным специалистов, должно произойти «благодаря оживлению промышленного производства и торговли», а также «росту уверенности участников рынка и стабилизации цен на сырье». Financial Times Глава "Роснефти" Сечин заглядывает в будущее, за пределы санкций, наложенных на Россию Санкции США в отношении Игоря Сечина были элементом тех широких санкций, которые, наряду с обвалом цен на нефть, ввергли российскую экономику в двухлетнюю рецессию, отмечает Financial Times. "Хотя "Роснефть" на удивление хорошо выдержала кризис, Сечин не может скрыть свою обиду", - полагают журналисты. "Честно говоря, мне не нравится говорить о санкциях. Я полагаю, что они совершенно не оправданны и даже незаконны. Нельзя переносить политическую ответственность на корпоративный уровень. Мы не участвуем в международной политике. Мы не формируем политику", - сказал Сечин в интервью газете. Business Insider Без потерь не обойтись «Российский скандал» продолжает набирать обороты. Многие считают, что утечки секретной информации необходимы, чтобы информировать общественность о якобы непрозрачной деятельности администрации. Однако эксперты по вопросам национальной безопасности стали все чаще спорить о том, как нужно рассматривать такие утечки - как общественное благо или как риск для безопасности. RT Госдеп США оплатил выделенные Ираку $3 млн без подтверждающих расходы документов Госдеп США оплатил счета на сумму $3 млн в рамках договоров по предоставлению услуг мониторинга программ экономической помощи Ираку, не получив при этом никаких документов, поясняющих, на что эти средства будут направлены. Об этом сообщает RT со ссылкой на ведомственный отчетный документ. Уточняется, что об этом стало известно по результатам проведенной генеральным инспектором при ведомстве проверки. Инспекторат проверил 75 контрактов, которые Госдеп выделил на мониторинг проектов помощи Ираку в 2011-2016 годах через бюро по делам Ближнего Востока и бюро по вопросам демократии, прав человека и труда. RNS Глава Total ожидает роста цен на нефть к концу 2017 года Глава французской нефтегазовой компании Total Патрик Пуянне заявил, что он ожидает роста цен на нефть к концу текущего года. Об этом сообщает RNS. «Должны вырасти цены», - сказал Пуянне, отвечая на соответствующий вопрос. Он также подчеркнул, что достижение и продление соглашения об ограничении добычи является «безусловно позитивной новостью для рынка». Ранее глава Минэкономразвития России Максим Орешкин сообщил, что продление соглашения по сокращению добычи нефти позволит стабилизировать ситуацию с запасами нефти в мире. Reuters Deutsche Bank проигнорировал запрос конгрессменов о связях Трампа с Россией Deutsche Bank не ответил на запрос американских конгрессменов-демократов о предполагаемых связях президента США Дональда Трампа с Россией. Об этом в воскресенье, 4 июня, сообщает агентство Reuters. "Юрисконсульт Deutsche Bank подтвердил получение нашего письма, но не предоставил ответов по сути наших вопросов", - рассказал агентству один из представителей Демократической партии, пожелавший остаться неназванным. Группа демократов в комитете по финансовым услугам нижней палаты Конгресса США направила запрос на имя гендиректора Deutsche Bank Джона Крайана 23 мая. Конгрессмены интересовались, в частности, "давало ли правительство России гарантии под кредиты, выдававшиеся Трампу в Deutsche Bank, и были ли эти кредиты каким-либо другим образом связаны с Россией". ВВС Google Chrome начнет блокировать назойливую рекламу Корпорация Google, принадлежащая Alphabet, объявила, что в 2018 году внедрит в браузер Chrome функцию блокировки назойливой интернет-рекламы. В своем блоге корпорация сообщила, что предоставит владельцам сайтов инструмент Ad Experience Reports, который поможет им понять, какая реклама считается приемлемой и как разрешить проблемы с рекламой, которая не соответствует стандартам. Стандарты качества рекламы будет определять "Коалиция за лучшую рекламу", в которую вошли Google, Facebook, News Corp, Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB), Procter & Gamble и другие компании. Неприемлемой, в частности, будет считаться реклама в виде всплывающих окон, автоматически включающиеся видеоролики и рекламные объявления с обратным отсчетом времени. Daily Mail Через 60 лет люди смогут жить до 120 Исследования показывают, что препараты, взаимодействующие с нашей ДНК, помогают дольше поддерживать функционирование нашего организма. Шесть подобных препаратов уже разрешены в России; в течение трех лет они могут быть испытаны и в Европе. Специалисты подчеркивают, что для получения полного эффекта эти препараты обязательно следует совмещать со здоровым образом жизни. Информационно-аналитический отдел TeleTradeИсточник: FxTeam

05 июня, 00:50

Former News Corp Boss Admits "The Media Isn't Going To Change... In Fact It Will Get Worse"

Authored by Erico Matias Tavares via Sinclair & Co., Marty Pompadur is a reference in the global media industry, where he is involved as an investor, advisor and board member. Until recently he was global vice chairman of media and entertainment for Macquarie Capital based in New York City. In June 1998, Mr. Pompadur became Executive Vice President of News Corporation, President of News Corporation Eastern and Central Europe and a member of News Corporation’s Executive Management Committee. In January 2000, Mr. Pompadur was appointed Chairman of News Corporation Europe. In his decade with News Corporation, he was instrumental in negotiating the merger of Stream and Telepiu to create Sky Italia in Italy, now one of the world’s most successful Pay-TV businesses and in creating and managing several successful businesses across Europe. He started his media career at ABC, where he eventually became the youngest person ever to be appointed to the board of directors. He then left to pursue senior career opportunities with other media companies. Mr. Pompadur graduated from Williams College with a BA Degree and from the University of Michigan Law School with a LLB Degree. E Tavares: Thank you very much for being with us today. You are a seasoned veteran of the media industry and as such we very much appreciate your views on something that is very important to citizens in free societies, and that is having access to reliable and trustworthy news and information. Based on your decades’ long experience, what have been the major changes regarding how news media operates and is disseminated? Not just in terms of technology but the actual business model and content strategies. M Pompadur: I started in the industry in 1960. Back then we had newspapers, magazines, television and radio. Let’s concentrate on the latter two. If you were a television or radio station, distinguished from a network, you were subject to the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). Some of those rules stipulated that your news had to be fair and balanced, and you had to give equal time to different views. If there was a political race or some kind of a referendum going on you couldn’t just put out one side of the argument. You had to offer equal time to both sides and if you didn’t people would complain to the FCC. Now, if you were a network – ABC, CBS and NBC in those days – you were not licensed but you were still required to be fair and balanced because their news programming went out on the stations, which insisted that they complied with their own regulations. In the case of ABC, and I think also in the case of CBS and NBC, when I got involved with them and eventually became general manager of the television network the news department did not report to us. They reported to the Board of Directors because they did not want the news department to be influenced by anything – by advertisers and so forth. That’s how it was in the “old days”. There’s no question that even if you had to be fair and balanced and had to provide equal time people organizing the news still had their own opinions. So in occasions that would come out in a certain sense but it was still more middle of the line than it is certainly the case today. For instance, in 1968 ABC was going to be acquired by ITT. That was rejected by the FCC because they were afraid that ITT had significant international interests and as a result could try to influence the news department to protect them. Things have dramatically changed since then. The big change occurred in television. Putting the internet aside for a minute, most people were traditionally getting their news from newspapers, in some sense from magazines like Time and Newsweek and from television. So what set the change in motion? Cable came along, first to assist in distribution. They did not have any original programming. The idea behind cable was that certain places in America did not have three TV stations; they had access to only one or perhaps two with adequate quality. So along came cable and regardless of where you were on the dial it was exactly the same quality on your cable system. People then came up with the idea of producing their own original content, since now they had the distribution in place. And then came along HBO, CNN and so on. They are not licensed and so there was no restrictions, no limitations, no fair and balanced, no nothing. They basically could say anything they wanted, obviously subject to decency and violence and so forth, but in terms of point of view they could do what they wanted. So it depended on the owner of CNN or MSNBC or Fox News as to whether they wanted to be liberal or conservative. And this was a major, major change. And then came the internet, with outlets like BuzzFeed, Vice and others, which changed the landscape even further. So the business has dramatically changed over the years. As far as I’m concerned, from the point of view of people getting access to accurate information, it has not changed for the better. ET: That shift in the US started to become much more apparent in the early 1990s with news outlets becoming increasingly segmented along party / ideological lines. Do you agree with this timeline? MP: I do agree. I’m not sure there is a specific date but it was around then. As all these cable channels were coming up I became involved with Rupert Murdoch first as a consultant when he launched Fox News. He is conservative himself, but he decided that there was a market niche and he was thinking about how to fill it. Along came Roger Ailes, who had just left CNBC and was immediately picked up by Rupert to launch that channel. From the very beginning it was intended to be drawn along conservative lines and Rupert and Roger really executed that. It was really difficult for them particularly at that time. Cable companies did not want to add more channels. So instead of going on free of charge on the cable system, EchoStar or DirectTV, or instead of getting paid for original content, Rupert had to pay out a couple of hundred million dollars to get on cable systems with the Fox News channel. And that paid off in the end. Now, how did he make it so successful? Obviously there was brilliant execution and he was right – there was a niche in the marketplace. What Roger in particular did though was to create media personalities for primetime; must see and must listen to personalities. As a result, they became so strong that CNN and MSNBC had to do something about it. MSNBC decided to emulate Fox’s success on the right to the left, and they became even more liberal. If you are a liberal you watch MSNBC. CNN had a different theory, and that is to report the news whatever it is around the world. So whenever there was some kind of a terrorist act or major accident, CNN would cover it 24/7, maybe for days. Remember how they covered the Malaysian airline plane that disappeared into the Indian Ocean? So each network had to choose a different way to pick up audience ratings and getting advertising to get more profitable. ET: That split has become even more visible after the election of Donald Trump to the US Presidency. According to a survey by the American Enterprise Institute media partisanship is at its highest in decades. Is this something that concerns you as a media executive or is it just an inevitability given the split that is occurring in American society along the same lines? MP: It does concern me a great deal for several different reasons. First of all, because the internet is capturing more and more advertising revenues – and I think this year for the first time ever it will be greater than television advertising – most of it going to Facebook and Google, the old traditional ways of getting news are going out of business. Where’s Newsweek today? Where’s Time magazine? Newspapers are barely surviving. As a result, newspapers today no longer have the resources to do investigatory reporting. So who is going to do the next Watergate? Good question. Is it going to be the Washington Post or the New York Times as they continue to cut back? Actually, what’s happened in this sector is very interesting. If you look at the Washington Post, which in my opinion used to be one of the best newspapers in the world, it was literally going out of business until Amazon’s Jeff Bezos bought it. He doesn’t care about profitability, although they are doing better now because of digital advertising, so he bought it to do investigatory reporting and to present his point of view, which is a liberal point of view. If you look at the New York Times it has always been liberal and continues to be. They are trying to do investigatory reporting although they just announced that they are cutting their editorial staff. On the whole, it’s a question mark on how long they can keep up that work and I’m really concerned about that. On the other hand Gerry Lenfest, who is a friend of mine, bought the Philadelphia newspaper because it was going out of business and his city would be left without any local newspapers. He put it in a trust and he funded it so that the newspaper can hopefully remain in business forever and be an independent voice in that community. There are a lot of changes taking place because of traditional newspaper and magazine advertising declining and because young people are no longer getting news that way. They are not getting it on print, they are not getting it necessarily off television. They are getting it more and more off the internet. ET: One area where this split has created a spectacular, if regrettable, friction is between Trump’s White House and most of the mainstream media, which he regularly accuses of being “fake news”. Opinions on who is right or wrong are once again clearly divided along party lines, as shown in a recent Gallup poll. Regardless of opinions, the real loser is American society as trust in vital institutions like the government and the media is gradually eroded. This can be a dangerous slippery slope. What do you make of this? MP: To some extent I think Trump has caused this on himself through his use of Twitter. We never had a President who expressed himself so often in the way he expresses himself, and with all due to respect to him very often he sends out contradictory messages. Therefore, it is natural for the other side to be attacking him. I think the poll is correct though. I have never seen this before. One of the problems of people getting their news off the internet is that they don’t really question the source of the news. Is it real news, has it been investigated, has it been fact checked? I’m not saying that BuzzFeed or Vice do or don’t do any of these but clearly there is an opportunity to get out whatever news you want to get out and it gets picked up and repeated and it goes viral. And in the end people don’t know where the news came from to begin with, who wrote it and if it’s actual news or just someone’s opinion. And again going back to the old days if it was opinion versus fact you had to label it as such. Now you don’t know the difference between the two. And that, I think, has created “fake news”. ET: A recent study by the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University found an unquestionable media bias against the Trump Presidency. He was the topic of 41% of all news stories during his first 100 days in office, three times the usual amount. And that coverage was broadly negative – 80% of total in fact, compared with 41% and 57% for Presidents Obama and George W Bush, respectively. On sensitive topics like immigration the media had a negative tone on Trump’s polices by a whopping 96%. Would you agree that the mainstream media has lost a lot of its objectivity and impartiality at this point? And will this change at some point? MP: I don’t think it’s going to change. I don’t like to generalize but people who go into the news industry tend to be liberal. Let me give you an example of how little things can change. If I go back to when I started, we had entertainment, news and sports. We had 200 affiliates all around the country and owned seven stations at ABC. And the affiliates used to come to us and say: “Guys, we have a problem. Most of you people at the network are from the east coast or the west coast. Most if not all of you are liberal and went to liberal universities like Brown, Princeton or Harvard. What you are doing is the following. You are #1 in sports but in news and entertainment you are programming for yourselves, to the east coast and the west coast. You have no idea what someone in Ames, Iowa, or Fargo, North Dakota, really wants to see. And you have to change that, otherwise you will become irrelevant.” Now, fast forward to Trump’s election. The media made a big mistake, the same mistake ABC had made when I joined. I looked at Trump, I heard what he was saying and on top of it I know him personally – I was on the board of directors of a charity with him, so I know him pretty well. So when I heard him speaking on the campaign trail I said there isn’t a single minority or disabled person or woman who will vote for him. How the heck can he get elected? What I didn’t realize, putting the electoral college aside, was the undercurrent in the middle of the country – Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio and others – who were deeply dissatisfied with their quality of life. I missed it, totally. Once again. So I don’t think the media is going to change. In fact I think it will get worse, and I find it very distressing. ET: You brought up the point earlier about fact-checking. With globalization and hyper-connected smartphones, newsworthy events are happening so fast that it becomes very difficult to independently verify or fact-check them. Moreover, anyone with a camera can easily setup a Youtube channel and start reporting real or fake news. Historically, people have relied on the news media to filter and validate that information. With American’s trust in mass media at historic lows who can fulfill that role? MP: I don’t think anybody can. I think it’s going to continue. And your point is very well taken. Maybe technology can solve it but you can see the problems that Facebook is having first with advertisers, when they are associated in some cases not only with fake news but violence and other types of undesirable content. I believe I just read that they just hired 3,000 people to try and review all the content to make sure that stuff that is not supposed to get out there doesn’t get out there. The reality though is that people can’t do that well. There’s too much content and there are more and more ways to distribute it. And it keeps on growing. So there has to be some marvelous technical solution to deal with this and clean it all up, but I am not optimistic. I think it will get worse. Again, people don’t know what is fact and what is fake. They just don’t know. With all due respect to our population, they are too busy, too lazy and not educated enough to really dig deep. And what is popular today are the USA Todays of the world. People are not reading the Wall Street Journal, they are just getting soundbites. And it’s very easy when they are getting soundbites to be able to have fake news. ET: Given your prior involvement with Fox News we can’t resist asking your opinion on the turmoil at Fox News. You mentioned that Roger Ailes, who recently passed away, was instrumental in getting that news outlet off the ground, leveraging among other things the power of media personalities. Now key news anchors like Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity are claiming to be victims of coordinated smear campaigns targeting their reputation and their advertisers, irrespective of them having committed any wrongdoing. And the departure of some appear to have negatively impacted ratings, with thousands of viewers abandoning ship and liberal leaning networks taking the lead in key demographics. In your opinion what should Fox News do at this point? MP: Good question. Again, let’s go back in time. It’s helpful to get some perspective here. When I was at ABC there were three networks and we were #4 in news. Nobody was watching our news. There was guy named Roone Arledge who ran ABC Sports, which was #1 in sports in those days. And he also took over News eventually. He said to himself and to us in the management team that the only way he could improve the ratings was for news to become personality driven. We had to get stars. So we got Barbara Walters, Diane Sawyer, Peter Jennings and others, and from the mid-1970s we became #1 in news. In a sense Roger Ailes and Rupert had done the same thing at Fox. They found people and brought them up. The problem is that you live or die with your big star personalities, especially today when people are so celebrity driven in the US. Megyn Kelly just left for NBC. They lost O’Reilly. Hannity is still there, question is will he stay. So in the three-hour block primetime they lost two hours of the three hours. Now they have to replace them. And they are very vulnerable as a result. The question is will the people they put in there attract the same kind of a following? Very, very hard to do. Not impossible, especially if you have a strong bench. But the problem with having a strong bench is that once they get popular enough they can go off to a different network. There’s an additional problem for Fox. Finding stars that are conservative and who can replace the two that they lost is a real challenge. And you don’t have Ailes there anymore. Rupert is still as active as ever but you have dissention in the family because the two sons who are getting more involved in the business are very liberal and very “green”. When Rupert leaves – or rather, IF he ever leaves – I’m not sure Fox News will remain a conservative voice because that goes against where the kids’ heads are. But that’s a whole different story. ET: That’s very interesting. However, people will not stop being conservative even if primetime cable becomes 100% liberal. For argument’s sake we could say that 50% of Americans are conservative so it’s a big number. Where will they go to get their news? Is radio the alternative? There are a lot of conservative stars there, like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Ben Shapiro, Laura Ingraham, Alex Jones and even Sean Hannity himself. MP: When Ailes got fired some of us thought that he would start another conservative channel. Doesn’t have to be a cable channel, it could be delivered over the internet, and rather inexpensively at that. But now he is gone. However, there’s Bill O’Reilly out there. And Sinclair Broadcasting, which is in the process of acquiring Tribune Company. The owner is very conservative and his outlet will target New York, LA, Chicago and other television stations covering, say, 70% of the US. He will compete with Fox News and he will do it very effectively. So I think you will find that there will be a competitor, perhaps delivered over the internet rather than via cable or television channel. There will be competition because Fox News is vulnerable and as you pointed out the ratings of CNN, MSNBC and others are increasing particularly in the demographics the advertisers want. Fox News has a real problem. ET: While we have focused thus far on the US, you also have extensive experience abroad, and still travel all over the world for business. Some European governments have intervened to censor what they deem to be fake news or even offensive speech. Some outlets like Facebook, pursuant to what we just discussed, could face millions in fines if they fail to comply. What do you make of this? Is this concerning for things like freedom of speech and expression which are hallmarks of free and democratic societies? MP: Well, it’s a new world. In the old days, before the internet, radio and television, certainly the latter, was local, local, local. Or by country at least. It did not cross from one country to another. You did not have a Facebook that could be seen globally. But today you are sitting in Germany and people are watching Facebook and you can’t control it because the content is emanating out of the US or wherever. If you don’t like what is there, what do you do? Do you turn off Facebook, or Google like the Chinese have tried to do in their country, or do you pass laws that might be viewed as the beginning of censorship? These are very good questions and I’m not sure I have the right answer. Here’s some interesting context. I first visited Russia in 1989 when it was still communist and then in 1991, when communism fell. There were 11 television networks then, run, owned and controlled by eight different people. Today there are 11 television networks supposedly controlled by three people. One Russian oligarch has two, Gazprom Media Group has four I think and National Media Group has five. But basically it’s all Putin. If you wonder why his popularity rating is as high as it is in Russia the main reason is that all the news on television is propaganda. In China you have CCTV. There is an evening news show, I believe at 7 pm, that everyone there literally must watch if they want to get any news. And you have, I don’t know, it must be a million censors who look at everything that goes out, which must be approved by them. So autocratic rulers have realized that the way to control the country is through television. Forget radio, forget print; it’s television. But now you have the “damn” internet, and they are saying to themselves how can we control this? And so you are going to see regulations within these countries intended to control the internet. How can they do it? I don’t have a good answer for that, but they will try. ET: Finally, in your opinion where is this all going? How can trust in the media be restored across much of the Western world given what’s going on? You pointed out that societies governed by autocratic rulers restrict as much as possible access to real information. What will happen to our free societies in the West if we go down that path? And who can lead any positive change in this regard, the people, the government or the news outlets? MP: Unfortunately I’m very pessimistic about that. And cynical. With all due respect to the people, they tend to be passive or just not active enough. So it has to be some combination involving the government, because at least in the US you have a system of checks and balances – the executive, the judiciary and the legislative – so we have a better chance of getting it right, or at least making sure it doesn’t get out of control. I think it is a serious, serious problem and I don’t think it will get better, in fact the opposite. ET: Thank you very much for sharing your insights. This has been phenomenal. MP: Thank you. All the best.  

03 июня, 03:33

Google Chrome будет блокировать назойливую рекламу

Корпорация Google, принадлежащая Alphabet, объявила, что в 2018 году внедрит в браузер Chrome функцию блокировки назойливой интернет-рекламы.

02 июня, 16:55

Monstrous Managers: 15 of the Most Hated CEOs of All Time

The world has seen a lot of villainous managers come and go over the years. But none is more despised than this lot of 15 CEOs.

02 июня, 14:47

Chrome начнет блокировать некачественную рекламу в 2018-м

В начале следующего года в браузере Chrome появится функция, которая будет блокировать "некачественную" рекламу. Как сообщил главный по онлайн-рекламе в Google Сридхар Рамасуоми, новый инструмент начнет "резать" даже те объявления, которые "принадлежат или обслуживаются" самим поисковиком.

27 ноября 2014, 09:05

ЕС vs США: Google предлагают разбить на куски

Европейский парламент готовится к обсуждению странного вопроса: "стоит ли разделить компанию Google на несколько отдельных сервисов?" У американских коллег сама идея вызывает все возможные негативные эмоции - от недоумения до негодования.  Показать "Кузькину мать" Европарламент не способен разрушить Google. В конце концов, штаб-квартира компании находится в США, и кроме американских властей структуру ее бизнеса никто не может изменить. Но в Европе продолжается антимонопольное расследование деятельности Google, в рамках которого политики и чиновники придумывают новые способы ограничения экспансии американцев на своей территории. На таком фоне действия Европарламента являются скорее намеком на продолжение преследования зарубежного интернет-гиганта. Законотворцы могут поддержать идею отделения поисковика Google от других фирменных сервисов. Если это произойдет, американцы должны получить четкий сигнал, отражающий позицию властей Евросоюза. До сих пор центральное место в расследовании занимали именно антимонопольщики из Еврокомиссии. В Америке на выпад со стороны европейцев уже отреагировали сразу два правительственных комитета. Их представители, сенаторы Рон Уайден и Оррин Хэтч заявили: "Это предложение и другие подобные ему идеи способствуют строительству стен, а не мостов. При этом не учитываются в полной мере те негативные эффекты, которые могут навредить торговым отношениям США и ЕС". В США считают, что Европа нарушает принцип открытых рынков. Говорится также о "политизации" процесса. Действующие лица Интересно, что против разделения Google выступает Гюнтер Эттингер. Да, тот самый Гюнтер Эттингер, который раньше отвечал за энергетику и присутствовал на переговорах между Украиной и Россией по газу. Теперь он еврокомиссар по вопросам цифровых технологий. Эттингер уверен, что бить Google на части никто не будет. Кто же тогда решил голосовать? Это Андреас Шваб, представитель консервативного крыла Европарламента и испанец Рамон Тремоза, представляющий интересы Каталонии. Эти политики утверждают, что усилия Еврокомиссии пока не оправдали себя, а поведение Google на рынке Старого Света напоминает монополизм. "До сих пор Google отказывалась придумать какие-либо идеи, способные изменить ситуацию и снять претензии со стороны Еврокомиссии. Вместо этого компания продолжала вести дела как ей заблагорассудится. Таким образом она давит на конкурентную среду, что вредит европейским потребителям и бизнесу", - считают Шваб и Тремоза.  Ссылки по теме Мердок: "Google – шайка пиратов" Европа забывает, Google хочет вспомнить все Google наконец договорилась с европейскими властями В самой Еврокомиссии произошли перестановки. Хоакин Альмуния отправился в отставку, и его место заняла Маргрете Вестегер. Интересно, какую позицию займет она и как далеко готова будет пойти ради обеспечения свободной конкуренции на интернет-рынке в том виде, в каком эту конкуренцию видят консерваторы из Европарламента. Битва за правду или зависть? В данный момент 90% поисковых запросов в Европе приходится на Google. В 2010г. конкуренты подали жалобу на американского игрока, объявив, что он мешает им развиваться. Речь идет в частности о рекламе и выгодном положении партнеров в поисковых результатах. Напомним, что ранее медиа-магнат Руперт Мердок сделал громкое заявление по поводу Google. С помощью исполнительного директора News Corp Роберта Томсона он попытался донести до антимонопольных органов мысль о том, что Google отдает предпочтение своим сайтам-партнерам. Если пользователь вбивает запрос в поисковик, то якобы получает именно те результаты, которые принесут Google максимальное количество денег. Подобные претензии озвучивались и раньше, но News Corp сформулировала их, пожалуй, максимально жестко. Отметим, что Google все-таки пытается найти мирное решение. Так в начале этого года компания согласилась выводить в результатах поиска рекламные объявления, предоставляемые конкурентами.