Trump: Amazon CEO using Washington Post for political power

[ABX]

So Free market competition of the press is Big Government now? We do not have a free press now. If we had them competing we would.  6 mostly foreign Globalist CEOS control it now, That's not a free press. Anti-Trust is how ATT was broken up, Shell was broken up, Its to create competition. Competition  in the press will go a long way to obtaining small government. We do not have any effective competition in the press now  Mostly the Alt media, but not in the MSM.

Your original premise is flawed that we don't have a free-market already and that somehow, bureaucrats can be the solution to a non-existent problem.

Let's look at the original premise- 6 corporations control 90% of media. Of course, stories on that are written to rile people up but stepping back on the situation, that represents a more diverse and competitive market share than most major industries. 6 companies controlling 90% of a market is not a monopoly unless they engage in other forbidden practices.

Media is a more of competitive market than many other major industries: automotive (3 major companies controlling over 90% of market share), software (2 companies control almost 100%), telecom (4 companies controlling 90%+), Insurance (6 companies controlling 90% plus), banks (4 own 80% of home loan market for example), Food production/ag (1 company has 40% of market share alone, top 4 account for about 70%), pharmaceutical (3 companies control 70% of market), airlines (6  control 70% of market share, top 3 alone account for 50%).... and so on and so on...

So is there a problem with the current media ownership model that would fall under the guise of a monopoly or anti-trust issues?

Are there allegations of price fixing? Not that I'm aware of. Most media revenue comes through advertising and that is a highly competitive market.

Is entry to the market barred? It could be argued, especially in the age of new media, it is actually easier now to enter the media market than at any time before.

Is there any limit of information to the public? Again, it could be argued that in the age of new media, the diversity of opinion and news is greater now than ever before.

...and that brings up a major issue- New Media.  Not calculated in that ownership is the explosion of new media as an alternative source, giving people almost free access to a diversity of thought and news from around the world, at an instant. If there were any anti-trust issues associated with the 6 major media owners, the free market itself solved the issue with new media.

So tell me again, what is the problem that we need more government and more bureaucrats to come to the rescue?  Why do we need 'someone from the government who is here to help'?

[Mechanicos]

Oh and until $neverTrump examines the 3 urls I posted showing how we do not have a free press now and why - Please stop making ignorance based arguments to me. Its boring when the other side has no intention to seek truth just argue.

[Neverdul]

Fits nicely with his ideas to" Open up" libel laws.

I was on record (at TOS) of being willing to stand by and see if Trump would/could leave off the crazy talk and personal vendettas and bully boy tactics.

It is surely a vain hope.

Why do I think that “opening up” the libel laws will not apply to Trump’s friend David Pecker and the National Enquirer?

[Mechanicos]

Your original premise is flawed that we don't have a free-market already and that somehow, bureaucrats can be the solution to a non-existent problem.

Let's look at the original premise- 6 corporations control 90% of media. Of course, stories on that are written to rile people up but stepping back on the situation, that represents a more diverse and competitive market share than most major industries. 6 companies controlling 90% of a market is not a monopoly unless they engage in other forbidden practices.

Media is a more of competitive market than many other major industries: automotive (3 major companies controlling over 90% of market share), software (2 companies control almost 100%), telecom (4 companies controlling 90%+), Insurance (6 companies controlling 90% plus), banks (4 own 80% of home loan market for example), Food production/ag (1 company has 40% of market share alone, top 4 account for about 70%), pharmaceutical (3 companies control 70% of market), airlines (6  control 70% of market share, top 3 alone account for 50%).... and so on and so on...

So is there a problem with the current media ownership model that would fall under the guise of a monopoly or anti-trust issues?

Are there allegations of price fixing? Not that I'm aware of. Most media revenue comes through advertising and that is a highly competitive market.

Is entry to the market barred? It could be argued, especially in the age of new media, it is actually easier now to enter the media market than at any time before.

Is there any limit of information to the public? Again, it could be argued that in the age of new media, the diversity of opinion and news is greater now than ever before.

...and that brings up a major issue- New Media.  Not calculated in that ownership is the explosion of new media as an alternative source, giving people almost free access to a diversity of thought and news from around the world, at an instant. If there were any anti-trust issues associated with the 6 major media owners, the free market itself solved the issue with new media.

So tell me again, what is the problem that we need more government and more bureaucrats to come to the rescue?  Why do we need 'someone from the government who is here to help'?

It is reality denial to say my premise is flawed. Why is it you get more information from overseas media and alt media then the MSM? Why is it that so much information is censored by the MSM, such as stories on mass vote fraud? etc. Why is it no matter what channel you turn on the news is almost exactly the same with the same wording nd talking points only adjusted for demographics. Remember asking why they were so focused on the Kardisains when there was real news going on? Remember how they refuse to call it Islamic Terrorism?? etc.

When Globalists control what you see hear and think and its uniform in its censorship and message you do not have a free press.

If you really cared about freedom of the press and free speech you would welcome a competitive market place of information.  There is more freedom of the press here on this forum then there is on the Night time news casts.

[ABX]

It is reality denial to say my premise is flawed. Why is it you get more information from overseas media and alt media then the MSM? Why is it that so much information is censored by the MSM, such as stories on mass vote fraud? etc. Why is it no matter what channel you turn on the news is almost exactly the same with the same wording nd talking points only adjusted for demographics. Remember asking why they were so focused on the Kardisains when there was real news going on? Remember how they refuse to call it Islamic Terrorism?? etc.

When Globalists control what you see hear and think and its uniform in its censorship and message you do not have a free press.

If you really cared about freedom of the press and free speech you would welcome a competitive market place of information.  There is more freedom of the press here on this forum then there is on the Night time news casts.

The fact we know about those things shows the flaw in your argument. The market is highly competitive, especially with new media. Just because some people choose to stick with a handful of content providers doesn't mean there isn't a large and diverse competition to those providers. That's just what people choose.  The 'night time news casts' are part of a dying sector of a larger media and press scope. To judge the lack of diversity based on that small segment is like judging the lack of health food available by only looking at what McDonalds offers.

[Neverdul]

When you can show he wants to break up Amazon get back to me. The issue was monopoly control of media. And Anti-trust was created for ensuring a competitive free market. Not one thing I saw said he was even concerned about the Amazon market place. It was about hiring 20 staff to create Trump attack pieces.

$neverTrump has powerful filters it seems to ensure they only hear and see what they want it to be not the truth.

Trump’s own words:

Amazon is getting away with murder tax-wise. He’s using the Washington Post for power. So that the politicians in Washington don’t tax Amazon like they should be taxed. He’s getting absolutely away — he’s worried about me and I think he said that to somebody — it was in some article — where he thinks I would go after him for anti-trust. Because he’s got a huge anti-trust problem because he’s controlling so much. Amazon is controlling so much of what they’re doing.

Trump is claiming that Bezos is using the Washington Post to attack Trump because he thinks Bezos is “allegedly” concerned that Trump will go after him (Amazon) for anti-trust and that Amazon “getting away with murder tax-wise”.

I know that it can be difficult to sift through the Trump word salad but it doesn’t take “powerful $neverTrump filters” to understand what Trump is saying here.  He is not saying that the Washington Post is getting away with murder tax-wise or that the Washington Post is violating anti-trust, he is making that accusation against Amazon.

Again, show me how Amazon is a monopoly or how Bezos owning one single media outlet – The Washington Post constitutes a media monopoly? The Washington Post has no competition? Ownership of one media outlet constitutes “getting away with murder tax-wise”.

And FWIW, when Bezos purchased the Washington Post, there was an outcry by some Wapo staffers that Bezos’ more “libertarian” leanings would influence the paper more to the right. Remember that?

I would also note that Trump’s good friend David Pecker owns more media outlets than Bezos.

Oh and until $neverTrump examines the 3 urls I posted showing how we do not have a free press now and why - Please stop making ignorance based arguments to me. Its boring when the other side has no intention to seek truth just argue.

So having a discussion is “arguing” if it doesn’t fall in line with what you think? Great. Got it. I could go into dissecting the 3 urls you posted, especially the blogs like yournewswire.com and discoverthenetworks.org but I don’t think it would matter much.

I will also say that out of respect for the forum decorum here and being new, just like you, I’ve not used any negative adjectives or pejoratives to describe Trump supporters or called them names.  The $neverTrump with dollar sign seems rather pejorative to me.  Would you care to explain?

[kevindavis007]

Also:

Trump accuses Bezos of using the Washington Post to avoid taxes

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-jeff-bezos-washington-post-223148

Trump: Jeff Bezos Is Using WashPo as a ‘Tool for Political Power’

http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-jeff-bezos-is-using-washpo-as-a-tool-for-political-power/

Word salad warning ahead:

It is true that Amazon has a court case pending with the IRS and is also under scrutiny of the EU over how they organized their international tax structure in particular their valuation of intercompany agreements related to the operation they opened in Luxembourg and allegedly used to avoid paying US and EU taxes. I am not sure whether what Amazon has done is illegal or not, but remember that tax evasion is a crime, tax avoidance is not.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/18/revealed-project-goldcrest-amazon-avoid-huge-sums-tax

But also remember that Trump himself has said “I pay as little tax as possible”.  No wonder he says he will not release his tax returns…..

Also Trump seems to not understand what anti-trust means or the meaning of a monopoly with respect to the separate issue of US corporate taxation of companies that operate internationally. Most companies that operate internationally structure their subsidiaries in such a way as to avoid double corporate taxation.

It sounds to me very much like a not so veiled threat from Trump to Bezos – “print anything about me in the WP that I don’t like and when I’m POTUS I’ll go after your company Amazon using the full force of the government and go after you for anti-trust”.

Don't forget about Blue Orgin..

[Mechanicos]

The fact we know about those things shows the flaw in your argument. The market is highly competitive, especially with new media. Just because some people choose to stick with a handful of content providers doesn't mean there isn't a large and diverse competition to those providers. That's just what people choose.  The 'night time news casts' are part of a dying sector of a larger media and press scope. To judge the lack of diversity based on that small segment is like judging the lack of health food available by only looking at what McDonalds offers.

Its competitive? Get back to me when the MSM calls Islamic terrorism what it is. Get back to me when They Show BLM in a negative light, Tell me about them apologizing over their lies with Zimmerman? Get it? There is no competition of message. That's not a free press when they all are on the same page pushing the same agenda and censoring the same stories. 

[geronl]

newspapers have been used that way since they were invented

[jmyrlefuller]

newspapers have been used that way since they were invented

Thank you.

The newspaper industry was originally dominated by two types of organizations: political parties, and advertising agencies hawking nostrums of dubious effectiveness. Even in small towns in the 19th century you could often see a Democratic/labor union-backed newspaper up against a Republican newspaper. They've NEVER been objective. It only was made to appear that way, especially now that most cities only have one newspaper.

As for your Big Six accusation: that only applies to television. Radio, for example, is going through a massive decentralization right now. The Big Six (except CBS, who has one foot out the door at this point) have abandoned the medium. The only one that's doing any sort of growing is Salem Media, a Christian/conservative company that is NOT part of the Big Six. Clear Channel, which controlled stations in countless markets, has downsized to the smaller, leaner but still struggling iHeartMedia.

[Wingnut]

Why do I think that “opening up” the libel laws will not apply to Trump’s friend David Pecker and the National Enquirer?

Trumps personal pecker gnat running the Nat Eng surely can provide cover for the Orange ticturd.

[Mechanicos]

Thank you.

The newspaper industry was originally dominated by two types of organizations: political parties, and advertising agencies hawking nostrums of dubious effectiveness. Even in small towns in the 19th century you could often see a Democratic/labor union-backed newspaper up against a Republican newspaper. They've NEVER been objective. It only was made to appear that way, especially now that most cities only have one newspaper.

As for your Big Six accusation: that only applies to television. Radio, for example, is going through a massive decentralization right now. The Big Six (except CBS, who has one foot out the door at this point) have abandoned the medium. The only one that's doing any sort of growing is Salem Media, a Christian/conservative company that is NOT part of the Big Six. Clear Channel, which controlled stations in countless markets, has downsized to the smaller, leaner but still struggling iHeartMedia.

I posted just 3 links exposing how the Marxist Leftists took over journalism/media. One of them, the explore the networks one shows the print media capturing connections by them demonstrating why it is the same disinformation as the rest of the MSM. In 2012 it was 90 percent control of ALL  US media.

[jmyrlefuller]

I posted just 3 links exposing how the Marxist Leftists took over journalism/media. One of them, the explore the networks one shows the print media capturing connections by them demonstrating why it is the same disinformation as the rest of the MSM. In 2012 it was 90 percent control of ALL  US media.

First off, one of those links not only cites known quack Mike "Health Ranger" Adams, but uses a totally unrelated set of six organizations.

Second, another link has outdated information (specifically about Clear Channel, which as I already noted has begun dumping a lot of its stations). Clear Channel, by the way, is not one of the Big Six, is it?

Those Big Six companies not only compete against each other, but with other mediums. Facebook, Twitter, and Google each have their own issues—yet people willingly choose to still use them. Why? Because the general public sees value in them that it doesn't see in smaller sites.

Factor in all the companies and all the forms of media, and it's closer to about 20 companies, not 6.

If you want to talk collusion, that's another issue altogether, but a lot of that is driven by those companies trying to observe what they think the people will respond to hearing, and chasing those same nuggets of "news."

[Mechanicos]

Tell your bosses you failed with that spaghetti toss.

[jmyrlefuller]

Tell your bosses you failed with that spaghetti toss.

You don't know me that well, do you?

[Bigun]

But he's ok with foxnews.com carrying his water.

And people still defend this fool.

It's a disease with no known cure!

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Amazon is getting away with murder, tax-wise."

So says the guy who thinks that his taxes are none of our business.

[LadyLiberty]

So says the guy who thinks that his taxes are none of our business.

He also says that he works hard to pay a lower tax rate, and that the rich should pay more taxes, including himself.  Whatever tax policy you want, you'll find it somewhere in that "best brain."