The purchase of The Baltimore Sun is further proof that conservative billionaires understand the power of media control. Why don’t their liberal counterparts get it?
You have no doubt seen the incredibly depressing news about the incredibly depressing purchase of The Baltimore Sun by the incredibly depressing David Smith, chairman of Sinclair Broadcast Group, the right-wing media empire best known for gobbling up local television news operations and forcing local anchors to spout toxic Big Brother gibberish like this.
The Sun was once a great newspaper. I remember reading, once upon a time, that it had sprung more foreign correspondents into action across the planet than any American newspaper save The New York Times and The Washington Post. It had eight foreign bureaus at one point, all of which were shuttered by the Tribune Company by 2006. But the Sun’s real triumphs came in covering its gritty, organic city. And even well after its glory days, it still won Pulitzers—as recently as 2020, for taking down corrupt Mayor Catherine Pugh, who served a stretch in prison thanks to the paper.
Um actually, they’re only worth that much on paper, it’s all assets that they can’t…
Shut the fuck up. She could rent Liechtenstein, she owns multiple airplanes, and her dog’s closet is bigger than my home. Stop bootlicking. Who gives a shit what her wealth looks like? She has more money than people are even capable of imagining, why does it matter?
Being rich ≠ being a billionaire. I don’t know why you’re butthurt over reality, but lying about the facts of the matter is just creating outrage where none reasonably exists. Want to get pissed off because she’s richer than most people? Fine. But don’t lie just to go off on a “billionaires are unethical” tirade and aim it at someone who isn’t one.
Observing the facts is not bootlicking. Sorry that makes you uncomfortable, but grow the fuck up.
You mean like claiming that someone with a net “worth” of over a billion isn’t a billionaire, setting arbitrary conditions on accepting reality?
Twisting them into a pretzel to deny that a billionaire is a billionaire is awfully close, though.
You should take your own advice and stop inventing alternative definitions for clearly defined words such as “billionaire”, “facts”, “reality” and “lying”.
Net worth of an artist ≠ net worth of a real estate mogul. Unlike the real estate mogul, she can’t just sell off her voice and personality, the core of her “value.” It’s not my problem you don’t like those facts.
If you want to be mad at her for being wealthy, for flying on private jets or whatever, fine. I’m not her fan. I don’t give a fuck. But don’t go tilting at windmills over her being a billionaire, when that label is applied artificially.
Whether you’re in real estate, the arts or any other business, you don’t become a billionaire without stepping on a lot of people and being extremely exploitative.
It’s such an absurdly large amount of hoarded treasure, no matter how much you try to play it off as not counting when you sing or whatever nonsense you’ve convinced yourself of.
That she can’t get rid of a couple of her many sources of income doesn’t make her any less of a billionaire
You haven’t argued from fact at any point, only your completely baseless opinion that a billionaire who sings isn’t really a billionaire.
Could have fooled me!
No, that “label” describes anyone with a net “worth” of a billion or more, regardless of sources of income. That’s what the word FACTUALLY means, no matter how little you like that fact.
Okay, you sure showed me. Bye.