It's Official: News Corp to Buy DirecTV 273
Guppy06 writes "According to this Washington Post article, the heads at both News Corporation (owners of Fox) and DirecTV have agreed to a $6.6 billion deal to secure the purchase of DirecTV by News, with GM getting a little less than half of that total in cash. All that remains now is the actual exchange. For the record, EchoStar was going to pay $30 billion before the FCC shot them down."
I don't see this being a big change (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I don't see this being a big change (Score:2)
Re:I don't see this being a big change (Score:5, Insightful)
MSNBC is accomplishing that quite nicely on its own, thank you very much. And although the war has driven viewership of all three cable newsers up, the real losers have been the Old School "News By Appointment" telecasts on the broadcast nets. Check the ratings [usatoday.com] for the past three weeks. I mean, really, who wants to wait until the "Friends" re-runs are over to find out what is happening in Iraq?
News on TV -- Now, Today -- must be two things: Immediate, and Entertaining. If I want deep analyses and differing perspectives (and I do), I get them on the 'net. Twenty years ago I read the NY Post, Times, Daily News and my local Gannett paper every day. Now I read twice as much news from papers around the world, and I don't have to wash the newsprint off my hands afterwards. The broadcast outlets fail at providing those two criteria. Fox succeeds in spades, and their numbers are reflecting this.
The Fox News "phenomenon" is better understood not as a "right wing conspiracy" but a failure of one by the left wing that has been percolating for 30 years. It is, rather, the "mainstreaming" of the news. People "enjoy" seeing the news delivered by preenters who clearly share their perspective on the events they are reporting. This may not be good journalism, but it is turning out to be good television. Golly, who knew...?
They may not float your particular boats, but it does seem that a not insignificant majority of people in the US share views closer to those of O'Reilly and Hannity than of your average Ivy League University Latino Studies Profeessor. And Murdoch would be insane to ignore that fact. The broadcast news outlets have had their collective heads in the sand on this topic for years, and are now imperiled.
Re:I don't see this being a big change (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I don't see this being a big change (Score:3, Insightful)
"Socially liberal and economically moderate" would not put them out of lock-step with the "conservative" talk show hosts/entertainers who are in the front of the new media bus. (But I'd still like to see your source of that stat...)
My point here is that TV News is Show Business, and that Fox -- with whatever political party label you classify i
Re:I don't see this being a big change (Score:2)
I question the relevance of the last stat. "Equal Rights for Women?" Dude, it's 2004! Might as well use a question like "how many favor powdered wigs?" as a socio-political litmus test.
Re:I don't see this being a big change (Score:2)
That's because you've run into the definition barrier. On one hand, you have the American definition of "Liberal" and "Conservative," and on the other hand you have the real definition of "Liberal" and "Conservative."
The American "Liberal" is closer to the classical definition of a "Socialist," while the American "Conservative" is closer to the classical definition of "Liberal." American Liberals are more fans of big government (as far as I see), yet are big fans of relaxed social views. They seem to wa
Re:I don't see this being a big change (Score:2)
Significant Majority? (Score:2)
Re:Significant Majority? (Score:2)
I always get these two mixed up... who is the one who is always crying out "I HAVE ISSUES...?"
Re:Significant Majority? (Score:2)
What you hear on NPR is FACTS. Backed up by journalists with sources, just like the old days of the '90's.
Limbaugh has no research staff. His fact-checker reads comic books. Limbaugh makes stuff up on the cuff, crudged together from Republican National Committee blast-faxes. His show has no transcript availa
Re:Significant Majority? (Score:2)
Oh, stop! Puh-leeze...! You can't really believe that? Not sure if we're going to be able to have a meaningful exchange here if that's your premise, but let's give it a go...
I think that what Limbaugh, Hannity, and the rest of the Know-Nothings really are about is hate . They fan it, they bathe in it
You, sir, illustrate the reason why there will never be a strong liberal counter to the Limbaugh and O'Reilly shows. You take the whole experience far, far too seriously.
Re:I don't see this being a big change (Score:2)
Hear, hear! When the war started, I, of course, turned to CNN. But, then, I realized that CNN was boring, if I wanted to be entertained, I turned to Fox News. Everyone knows it's sensationalism at it's worst, but it's so entertaining!
~Will
Appealing to the lowest common denominator... (Score:2)
Re:I don't see this being a big change (Score:2)
All the special effects and actors' salaries are paid for by the US taxpayer. (excluding the top 1%, who get the giant tax cut this year.)
Now THAT'S entertainment!
Originally, Murdoch offered more $$$ (Score:5, Insightful)
The article neglects to mention that Murdoch has offered more (much more) in the past
He had planned a more than $20 billion offer for the company in 2001, and an even larger, $30 billion-plus offer in 2000.
I found the above info in a google search. We do contract work for DTV and I remember kind of scratching our heards when the Echostar bid was the one accepted. Directv accepted the offer from Echostar, even though iirc Newscorp offerd more. No one was confident that the Echostar deal would get approved. The rumor was that the management at Directv was scared that if Murdoch bought the business they were all out of work.
Now Murdoch gets Directv at a much better rate.
Re:Originally, Murdoch offered more $$$ (Score:2)
The people who support this meddling keep telling us it is somehow a good thing. Maybe good things are not that obvious here?
Re:Originally, Murdoch offered more $$$ (Score:3, Insightful)
Well to the extent that I think the goverment can ever help the "free" market out...yes, yes it is. DirecTV was beign sold, and the choices were to sell it to the only other USA satalite TV system, or to sell it to some media content conglomarate. One of those radically reduces the consumers avilable choices of satalite TV delevery (from "not much choice" to "no choice"), and even if you accept DISH/DTV's viewpoint that they compete with Cable TV systems the
Re:Originally, Murdoch offered more $$$ (Score:2)
So yes, the satellite networks are competing with Cable.
Re:Originally, Murdoch offered more $$$ (Score:4, Insightful)
They DON'T own DTV now, they just control ~34% of the stock. Sure they may be the largest stakeholders but by no means do they outright OWN it.
Re:Originally, Murdoch offered more $$$ (Score:2)
Re:Originally, Murdoch offered more $$$ (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Originally, Murdoch offered more $$$ (Score:3, Interesting)
Murdoch also offered to buy Hughes Electronics.
This deal isn't about Hughes Electronics, rather he has now offered $6 billion to buy Hughes Electronics 20% interest in DirecTV.
"Now Murdoch gets Directv at a much better rate."
But he doesn't get Hughes Electronics. Hughes is the GM satellite services group... they launch all sorts of commercial broadcast satellites. DirecTV was part of that, but so is XM radio and Onstar system and a whole slew of o
Re:Originally, Murdoch offered more $$$ (Score:2)
Also, when it becamme apparent that Rupert wanted DirecTV (at the height of the media bubble), there was talk of him buying General Motors outright and selling off the non-DTV assets, because it would be cheaper to buy all of GM than to just buy DirecTV.
What else do you expect? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What else do you expect? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually I believe we are heading for three namely Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia. The Ministry of Truth will tell me everything I need to know and the Ministry of Love will protect me.
Read a classic...........1984.
.
No, they withdrew (Score:2, Informative)
FOX? (Score:5, Funny)
Lisa: It's wonderful to think for ourselves again.
Bart: You said it, sister!
TV: You are watching Fox.
All: [Zombie-like] We are watching Fox.
Re:FOX? (Score:2, Funny)
The hell with Directv (Score:2, Informative)
well, that lasted
Yay! Finally a great deal for everyone! (Score:5, Funny)
It's great to hear that the world-wide media industry is getting more and more efficient over time. With only a few large players in the industry, billing can be consolidated and redundancy of equipment and programming can be minimized, saving globs of cash.
In the end, this is sure this will bring higher quality service and programming at significantly lower prices!
Alas, the savings and increase in quality will happen only over an extended period of time.
And with inflation and government regulations, we customers might perceive lower quality and higher prices.
But no... it'll be much better than it would've been... just look how radio has improved in the past 20 years!
Re:Yay! Finally a great deal for everyone! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Yay! Finally a great deal for everyone! (Score:2)
It's great to hear that the world-wide media industry is getting more and more efficient over time.
Absolutely! With all those different channels offering differnt viewpoints in the news I was getting confused!
With only a few large players in the industry, billing can be consolidated and redundancy of equipment and programming can be minimized, saving globs of cash.
Yes! Naturally, the large players won't pocket the savings, they'll pass it on to us!
In the end, this is sure this will bring higher qua
I'd rather have cash (Score:2)
For us non-usians (Score:3, Interesting)
Rus
Re:For us non-usians (Score:2)
Re:For us non-usians (Score:5, Informative)
Re:For us non-usians (Score:2)
I have a feeling it would be quite shocking to see just how bad it has become.
Re:For us non-usians (Score:2)
Sure, it's pretty simple really. Directly or indirectly, News Corp (the owner of everything with FOX in it's name) pretty much owns half of all of the noteworthy media companies in the USA, and has global conquest on it's mind, so watch out!
/giants/ [pbs.org], and prepare to realize that there are really only 6 companies providing all the media in the US.
For more details, check this out http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool
Re:For us non-usians (Score:2)
http://www.cjr.org/owners/index.asp [cjr.org]
Moving towards a unbalanced view of the news...? (Score:4, Interesting)
You only have to look at the past few months, with camera men being sacked for editing photos for publication in major news papers, and footage of the Iraqi war to show that news groups need to be more honest - and have competition to measure their views.
Views on the push by the US forces ranged from "Hurrah, the people are free", to "Look how the Americans allow people to loot" - with all the channels showing the same footage. One side said it was the whole city rising up, with another saying only a few hundred were celebrating.
So far this morning, the BBC have said both!
I find modern news channels being more political than ever before, and views on the same thing seem to contradict each other.
It all makes it harder to find out the real facts - especially if a company wants to be classed as friends of a political group to get more information - would they really state the facts if it was going to hurt a 'friendly' political group?
Ian.
it's already unbalanced! (Score:2, Insightful)
If you want to find out how badly the US is doing in the war, you watch CNN.
If you want to find out how evil the US is, you watch Al Jazeera.
By combining all 3, maybe the opposing waveforms cancel out leaving a small speck of truth. But in reality, I suppose you just have to be there.
Re:Moving towards a unbalanced view of the news... (Score:3, Insightful)
I want to make one thing clear, the Military is NOT trained as a police force. They are trained as a killing machine to go out there and DESTROY the enemy, not police it.
That doesn't mean they can't get the job done, but when they aren't even fully deployed in Baghdad or Basra and the chaos of war is still ensuing can you honestl
Security (Score:2)
I wonder is security measures are gonna be upgraded, or maybe prices. Many claims that prices go up are due to piracy and illegal use of the satelite system. Something is gonna happen when Newscrop gets into that mess, and it won't be nice for the consumer
Has people stopped watching TV yet? (Score:4, Interesting)
I do, however, miss DirectTV DSL, which used to be Telocity, the ONLY nationwide provider that does static IP for 50 bux a month, and don't mind if you run servers, NAT, whatever.
Why did they go under, anyhow... sigh. SBC is just not the same... not the same....
Re:Has people stopped watching TV yet? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think TV is a progressive sort of a addiction that once you break the habit for enough time to lose track of the devolving context, it's easy to not go back.
Yes I read the Onion article. I used to always tell people that
South Park (Score:2)
There is a reason the underpants gnomes are a staple of
Granted most of TV is a wa
This News Paper, TV Network, etc. seized by the fe (Score:2)
Goodbye HDTV on DirecTV (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Goodbye HDTV on DirecTV (Score:2)
But I may just be misunderstanding his position.
Same thing (Score:2)
But seriously, left to it's own devices the market won't be doing much in HDTV anytime soon. No demand from anyone but the 1% fringe that a) cares enough, b) can tell the difference and c) can afford the hardware and d) would be willing to trade channel count for fewer HD signals.
Let HD pass for now, it was pushing the tech way out in front of where it should
And people say the US government isn't corrupt.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny how on one hand we have GWB scream about the terrible and corrupt regeme of Iraq, yet, something like this just slips through and worst still, the US isn't like most countries. Most countries have a publicly funded television network that allows a voice of opinion to be broadcasted that isn't always "politically acceptable". Just look at Fox and the pro-war stance and the number of suckers sucked into the vacuum.
What the US needs first is a publicly funded broadcasting corporation that is at an arms length of government and receives no funding from the private sector. This is the only way to ensure media independence as the number of "media outlets" strink.
Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt. (Score:4, Funny)
I agree. We need something like Iraq TV. Baghdad Bob, come back, we need you for the 5 O'Clock Eyewitness News.
Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt. (Score:2)
You can thank the strong anti-socialisim meme for that.
Somewhere along the way, we've been taught that it's weak to take a "moderate" stance on an issue, so everyone wants to be an extremist. We've also been taught that democracy is the ultimate social construct (which is ironic since we do not live in a democracy).
Therefore the opposite extreme, socialism, is the ultimate evil. Anything even remotely resembling sociais
Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt. (Score:2)
I think there's a lot of "quid pro quo" going on between the government and the media. Murdoch
Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt. (Score:2)
Ugh! Don't, please. We (Italy) have it, and it's awful (although it served its purpose last century).
My take is that you can't get 'unbiased news' from a government controlled TV : the most you can get is two sets of opposite very biased news (both with very little informative content).
I believe the money spent on government TV would be better s
Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt. (Score:2)
It's called PBS and NPR.
Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt. (Score:2)
I've seen some pretty rambunctious stuff on PBS and NPR in my day
Pacifica Radio! (Score:2)
How aboutPacifica Radio [kpfk.org]! Not funded by government or corporate sponsors, just listeners. So they can (and do) say what they want. They have a few shows that are real gems, like Digital Village [digitalvillage.org], and The Car Show right afterward. There's a lot of crap too, bu
Hughes (Score:2)
I'm happy to see this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm happy to see this. (Score:2)
Uhhh.. I hate to burst your bubble, but we aren't out of the woods yet. You see, the first time around when Murdoch made a bid for DirecTV, he brought Microsoft with him to the table. You can find a little more info on this here [thestandard.com].
Microsoft really wants to get its software into all these set-top boxes, you see.
But what happened behind the scenes is more interesting. Microsoft wa
It's not exactly ownership... (Score:2)
ONeBig Corp, coming soon! (Score:2)
Clear Channel buys News, Corp..
Microsoft buys Clear Channel..
Oh no.. the Umbrella Corporation, coming soon!
I think it's fairly safe to say (Score:2)
Everyone knows it's Rupert! (Score:2)
Come on people, anyone who has been on the Simpsons (and yes, that was Rupert's voice in the superbowl episode) can't be all that bad.
As for all the raging conspiracies about 'liberal bias' or 'right-wing media' is just crap, at least in the context of the article at the top of this discussion. Granted, Ted Turner (primary owner in AOL-Time Warner, who own CNN) and Rupert Murdoch (primary owner of News Corp) both have political leanings
Slanderer! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Murdoch-ing the world (Score:3, Funny)
Oh no, people might watch something and agree with it!
Quickly! We must get the government to stop this! Only Vendekkai-approved news sources must be allowed to have audiences!
Re:Murdoch-ing the world (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Murdoch-ing the world (Score:2)
The hits I got talk about a local Fox affiliate, not the Fox News Channel organization. While it would be silly to say there are no ties between the two, it would be much more silly to try to say FNC is somehow responsible for it.
Re:Murdoch-ing the world (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you somehow think that HBO will come off as "more conservative" over the satellite if Rupert Murdoch owns DirecTV? Will it Janine Garafollo suddenly stop in the middle of a Comedy Special and launch into a Pro-Bush, Pro-War propeganda dialog on the "DirectTV" version of the broadcast?
How about the News... oh wait he already owns FoxNews.
How exactly will this change things again?
I'm not a big fan of the guy, but aren't we being just a wee bit paranoid here?
Re:Murdoch-ing the world (Score:2, Funny)
Advertising (Score:2, Insightful)
Earlier this year, a group of anti-war protesters put together a television advertisement. The major networks refused to run it because it was "too controversial". In order to get air-time, they had to go to cable companies and buy local advertisements.
With newscorp controlling DirectTV, one more advertising venue becomes consolidated under the same management structure.
Re:Advertising (Score:2)
Re:Murdoch-ing the world (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, it was kinda nice back in the day when I had three cable news channels to choose from...
In truth, I don't see CNN or MSNBC going away any time soon. They're too big and would cause too much of an uproar-- and frankly, they're still profitable to carry [0]. I can, however, see some of the smaller channels go away-- you don't need this Jefferson Pilot affiliate, because you've got Fox SportsSouth. Never mind that SportsSouth doesn't carry Georgia
Re:Murdoch-ing the world (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Murdoch-ing the world (Score:4, Insightful)
You're missing the point if you think the purpose of News Corp is to advance any political position
Politics comes a distant second to business in News Corporation. In the UK, Murdoch is seen as the very definition of a dangerous monopolist, controlling all satellite TV (which is more popular than cable) as well as several of the most popular newspapers (The Sun, The News of the World, The Times, The Sunday Times). The Murdoch media are generally populist right-wing, but they pretty soon slotted in behind Blair when they saw which way the wind was blowing. They are populist right-wing because it sells, that's all.
Re:Murdoch-ing the world (Score:2)
And Blair, is of course, champion of the Left!
Just look at all of Murdoch's rags; could you describe any of them as having even a center-left bias?
I would accept your argument if there was one instance of Murdoch slotting in behind some Left-wing regime/party, to advance his business interests, but for the life of me, I can't think of one single example.
Oh... T
Re:Murdoch-ing the world (Score:2)
I don't know: I'm giving you the perspective from a country where "Murdoch" is virtually a synonym for "the media" in the popular mind.
At a guess, and it's no more than that, I'd say it's for the same reason that his Chinese media interests are so pro-government: You can't reach the kind of dominant position he has in Britain without earning the support of some group in the government.
If you wish to disagree further, do you think you could do it politely?
What liberal media? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fox, CNN, NBC etc. are all run by corporations and have a strong conservative bias, which can be proven by the number of conservative 'specialists' they bring on their shows, and thus they don't offend their conservative owners/contributors. Works out nicely for Bush, since he's rarely criticized on TV, unlike Clinton.
What's disturbing to me about this is that there's actually a company called 'News Corp'. Talk about population control *shiver*. I'm stickin' with PBS. At least they consider all things
Re:What liberal media? (Score:3, Interesting)
2) Notice that Clinton was never criticized on TV for the things that actually mattered. Campaign donations from foreign countries is the kind of thing that causes presidents to get impeached (and they actually get kicked out).
Okay, I'll bite (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh...Do you have any evidence to back that up? A link to a survey? An exit poll? Anything? I know plenty of conservative journalists... (Having been, at one point, a journalism student in the state of Indiana.)
Sorry, but you must have been asleep during those controversies. There was widespread press criticism of the president in that scandal. Also, the "focus" on cigars and stained dresses should be traced back to a witch-hunt launched by Clinton's political adversaries. Is it a coincidence that the first democrat to be elected and serve TWO FULL TERMS (since...what, FDR?) was "investigated" endlessly by conservative political appointees who, after many years and $40 million of tax money could only "get" him on the technicality that he didn't wish to disclose an extra-marital affair when the investigation was supposedly focused on a real estate deal?
The biggest white elephant ever from the conservatives is the "liberal media" one. If the widespread "liberal" bias really existed, I would expect to see widespread outright opposition to President Bush's policies, since he is a Republican.
Yet the opposite is true. The networks are giving us non-stop, nearly pornographic (positive) coverage of this war and there are very few dissenting voices on the airwaves right now.
Again, you'd think if the media was so "liberal" they would show civillian casualty numbers which (once again) it appears will end up in the multiple thousands. I haven't heard even ONE PEEP on American television about civillian casualties... Except for when they hit a busload of civiliians with a missile, we heard about THAT "accident." But after the bombing of a residential area where potentially hundreds of civilians could have been affected... nothing. Not one peep.
Re:Okay, I'll bite (Score:2)
Either you're lying or you're not
Re:Okay, I'll bite (Score:2)
A witch hunt? You must be joking. You could only call it a witch hunt if Clinton hadn't done the things for which he was being investigated. Similarly, you can't say that they were slanderous or libelous attacks on Clinton, beacuse he really did do what they said he did. You may be able to claim that Clinton's political adversaries conducted a campiagn of character assassi
Re:Okay, I'll bite (Score:2)
Then we all agree.
It WAS a witchhunt.
Bush Family SOP (Score:2)
Re:Okay, I'll bite (Score:2, Insightful)
I certainly have... maybe you're th
Here are the real stats (Score:3, Informative)
More likely there are more deaths that can't be reported, and not to mention the tens of thousands of Iraqis defending their homes with WWII style guns, but who cares about them right?
Saddam wasn't a mass murderer when it came to his own people excluding the Kurds after the first gulf war of course, but then you don't have the facts, and really, neither do I, on how bad he was.
Re:What liberal media? (Score:2)
2. Bullshit. Kosavo?
3. Paul Begala is liberal. Fox News is Conservative. PBS is unbiased.
hah nice stats (Score:2)
First of all, where did you get this BS stat from? Secondly, there is no "liberal" party? Third, the idea with journalism is that your views do not affect the delivery of news except for cheesy commentary shows like what you see on foxnews. Fourth, you will find that the more education a group of people are, the more likely they are to have tendebcy towards liberal views, this is true of many moderate re
Re:a lot of money (Score:2)
Hell I would...less papercuts.
Re:High priests of the world: (Score:2)
Turner? He can't even scrape up enough cash to buy his beloved Braves back from AOLTW.
Re:This is great news (Score:2)
Screw Fox
Screw Murdoch
Re:Fox (Score:2)
It's sort of stunning to come face-to-face (so to speak) with a Fox-fan who doesn't understand the bias. (There are plenty of Fox-fans who are aware of the bias and just like it). Nonetheless, the AC poses a fair issue.
First of all, why do people care what
Re:Fox (Score:2)
"WHEN GOOD FACTS GO BAD" - Saturday, on FOX.
Anyone else remember the Saturday Night Live skit where the "interpreter" for Gorbachev was just making up stuff - and then he got chewed out, saying "He was a disgrace to the FOX network" ?? It was funny back then, because FOX was almost non-existant. But now - it almost seems like it had been foreshadowing...
Re:Fox (Score:2)
Fox's 2x report:
Florida's Govonor's Daughter was caught with rock's of cocaine. (next).
CNN: Jeb Bush's daughter and the presidents neice was caught with crack cocaine. She was sentenced earlier to prison, but was apparently not in prison anymore. (next).
Fair and Balanced???? I think not.
The real story should be, why was she out of prison and able to do the drugs in the first place? Jeb stepped in and got here out.
Personally, I think that families are en
Re:Fox (Score:2)
I mean, seriously, you know the complete Fox News coverage of that story? The fact that you didn't see it when you happend to watch is utterly meaningless. C'mon, youread SlashDot. I assume you're of a geeky mindset. You s
Re:Fox (Score:2)
So am I. But I am far more opposed to corruption int the government. As I said, the story is not that she was jailed, but how she got out.
Re:Fox (Score:2)
Re:Did you know (Score:2)