Category Archives: Corporations

Hillary Clinton is demolishing Donald Trump among hedge-fund donors

John Carney and Anupreeta Das report for Market Watch:

Hedge funds are playing a far bigger role in 2016 than in past elections—and Hillary Clinton has been the single biggest beneficiary.

Owners and employees of hedge funds have made $122.7 million in campaign contributions this election cycle, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics—more than twice what they gave in the entire 2012 cycle and nearly 14% of total money donated from all sources so far.

The lines around what constitutes a hedge fund aren’t always clear in the data, or in the financial industry. But the numbers are stark. The top five contributors to pro-Clinton groups are employees or owners of private investment funds, according to federal data released last week and compiled by, the center’s website. The data show seven financial firms alone have generated nearly $48.5 million for groups working on Clinton’s behalf.

The total for Donald Trump: About $19,000.


After Lying Low, Deep-Pocketed Clinton Donors Return to the Fore

Nicholas Confessore and Amy Chozick report for The New York Times:

In a luxury suite high above the convention floor, some of the Democratic Party’s most generous patrons sipped cocktails and caught up with old friends, tuning out Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont on Monday as he bashed Wall Street in an arena named after one of the country’s largest banks.

On Tuesday, when Hillary Clinton became the first female nominee of a major party, a handful of drug companies and health insurers made sure to echo the theme, paying to sponsor an “Inspiring Women” panel featuring Democratic congresswomen.

And in the vaulted marble bar of the Ritz-Carlton downtown, wealthy givers congregated in force for cocktails and glad-handing as protesters thronged just outside to voice their unhappiness with Wall Street, big money in politics and Mrs. Clinton herself.


U.S. Media’s Coverage of Donald Trump: Interview with Adam Johnson

Scott Horton speaks to Adam Johnson, a regular contributor to both AlterNet and Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), about the U.S. media’s repeated vilification of Donald Trump (in words and images), and the implications that Trump is Vladimir Putin’s puppet president in waiting. (Scott Horton Show)


Will Hillary Clinton Flip-Flop Again on TPP? Interview with Joseph Stiglitz

Amy Goodman speaks to Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize-winning economist, Columbia University professor and chief economist for the Roosevelt Institute. Stiglitz is an adviser to Hillary Clinton’s policy team and talks about whether or not she would support the Trans-Pacific Partnership if she was elected U.S. President. (Democracy Now!)

‘Slave-Gate’ Joins Bill O’Reilly and Fox News’s Ugly History of Race-Baiting

Lloyd Grove reports for The Daily Beast:

Fearless Falklands War correspondent Bill O’Reilly is an ace reporter whose nose for news also placed him at the front door of a shadowy JFK assassination figure at the very moment the guy was committing suicide with a shotgun, but also (alas) an innocent victim years ago of a frivolous sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a scheming female producer—if only in his own self-justifying fantasies and fabrications.

Now he has added once again to his fictional record of excellence.

O’Reilly’s latest journalistic exploit—deigning to lecture Michelle Obama on the facts of slavery in America—comes just as his employer, Fox News, is painfully clearing away the smoking rubble of an asteroid strike: fired anchor Gretchen Carlson’s sexual harassment lawsuit against the conservative-leaning cable network’s powerful founder and chairman, Roger Ailes, and Ailes’s shocking forced resignation last week in a cloud of scandal.

But you see, the 66-year-old uber-popular Fox News personality—who has slapped his name on a series of best-selling confections (Killing Lincoln, Killing Kennedy, Killing Jesus, etc.) largely researched and written by a co-author, Martin Dugard—is something of a history scholar, at least in his own mind.


War Correspondents Are No Longer Spies in the Eyes of the Pentagon

Erin Blakemore reports for Smithsonian:

War CorrespondentAll’s fair in love and war—including, apparently, equating journalists with enemy combatants. That was the case in the United States until today, when, as the Associated Press reports, the Pentagon updated its Law of War manual to remove wording that implied that journalists can be considered spies and enemies by U.S. military commanders.

The updated manual strikes controversial text that was put into place in 2015. At the time, the Department of Defense released its first-ever Law of War manual, a lengthy document intended to serve as a resource on war-related international laws like the Geneva Convention for U.S. Armed Forces. The manual outlined everything from the conduct of hostilities to how the military should treat prisoners of war, and it also contained a provision on journalists that raised eyebrows.

“In general, journalists are civilians,” the manual wrote. “However, journalists may be members of the armed forces, persons authorized to accompany the armed forces, or unprivileged belligerents.” The manual compared journalistic activity to spying, stating that “in some cases, the relaying of information…could constitute taking a direct part in hostilities.” The text adds that a state might need to censor journalistic work to protect sensitive information from falling into enemy hands.


The Case Against the Media, by the Media

From New York Magazine:

[…] As the media anxiety around media anxiety began to crescendo this spring, we at New York decided to turn our journalistic operation in on itself to investigate just how bad the media really is. We were less interested in bad actors — the Jayson Blairs and such — than in the structural dilemmas of the media trade: What keeps media people up at night when they’re thinking about what they do for a living? We began by asking ourselves and our peers what they think the media’s greatest faults are. The response was overwhelming but probably shouldn’t have been too surprising (the media loves to criticize the media). In interviews with more than 40 journalists and media figures and in a survey of 113 of our peers, we heard much about deals cut with anonymous sources, the pressure for speed and easy hits that squeezes the nuance out of complicated stories, editors who knowingly simplified stories past the point of accuracy and publishers who spent resources on subjects they believed were trivial rather than those they felt were important. At times, the survey’s answers read like the minutes from an anonymous group-therapy session.

The interviews that follow make the media look pretty bad — really bad, in fact. But as it happens, we’ve engaged in our own form of media distortion in this project. We’ve dwelled mostly on the negative, because that’s what we considered the “news.” Yet many we spoke to gave reasons for optimism, too. Some hailed the rise of the internet and social media for bringing new voices to the fore and for connecting established ones to new audiences. Several observed that the Trump effect was salutary for media credibility, as journalists learned to become more aggressive in fact-checking falsehoods mid-quote or mid-chyron. Some pointed to the rise of nonprofit investigative shops like ProPublica or the Intercept as happy developments, and others highlighted a new generation of benevolent media owners, like Jeff Bezos, as a sign that good journalism will still be produced. We’ve included links below to longer transcripts of our interviews; that’s so you can see for yourselves how we’ve cherry-picked the quotes — and also because reading each of the commentators at length makes for almost an entirely different (and much deeper) exploration of the subject.


Are We Living in a Golden Age of Stunt Journalism?

Zach Schonfeld writes for Newsweek:

Super Size Me[…] A decade ago, stunts like this might have been fodder for a reality show, like Fear Factor or maybe Jackass. Today, the Jackasses are just as likely to be professional journalists, dressing up as Marilyn Monroe or strapping on an adult diaper in the name of content. And as ad models shift toward video and live streams, journalists are now eating paper and freezing themselves in cryotherapy chambers on camera.

When did journalism become so… physically degrading?

Immersive journalism is not new. In 1887, the reporter Nellie Bly feigned insanity in order to be committed to a New York City insane asylum. Her stay resulted in a landmark undercover account of appalling conditions at the Women’s Lunatic Asylum. Eighty-odd years later, Hunter S. Thompson wrote a manic first-person account of the 1970 Kentucky Derby, which more or less invented the genre now known as Gonzo journalism.

“What’s happened now,” says Duy Linh Tu, a professor at the Columbia School of Journalism, “is there’s been an escalation in the types of stuff [writers will] do.” Stunt journalism is pretty easy to define: It’s any article wherein a writer becomes a guinea pig, attempting some masochistic or outrageous challenge in an attempt to prove a point or provide a first-hand experiential account. But it’s not so easy to trace its history; nobody can really tell you when stunt journalism evolved into today’s more sensationalist form, so let’s just go with May 2007. That was the month Vice magazine had an intern masturbate into an ice tray for a week, freeze the semen and then eat 12 multi-flavored “cumsicles” (ew) formed from his seed.


With DNC Leaks, Former ‘Conspiracy Theory’ Is Now True––and No Big Deal

Adam Johnson writes for Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting:

For months, Bernie Sanders supporters and surrogates have complained about unfair treatment from the Democratic National Committee—only to have these concerns dismissed by media observers as petulance and conspiracy-mongering.

This weekend, Wikileaks revealed thousands of hacked emails from within the DNC that showed what the New York Times described as “hostility” and “derision” towards the Sanders campaign from top party officials.

While it’s impossible to know whether systemic pro-Hillary Clinton bias at the DNC was decisive in the 2016 Democratic primary race, we now know beyond any doubt that such a bias not only existed, but was endemic and widespread. DNC officials worked to plant pro-Clinton stories, floated the idea of using Sanders’ secular Judaism against him in the South, and  routinely ran PR spin for Clinton, even as the DNC claimed over and over it was neutral in the primary. The evidence in the leaks was so clear that Debbie Wasserman Schultz has resigned her role as DNC chair—after her speaking role at the Democratic National Convention this week was scrapped—while DNC co-chair Donna Brazile, who is replacing Wasserman Schultz in the top role, has apologized to the Sanders camp.


Meet Peter Thiel: Donald Trump Taps Silicon Valley Billionaire Who Helped Bankrupt Gawker

Amy Goodman speaks to Sam Biddle, technology reporter at The Intercept, formerly of Gawker, who has followed Peter Thiel closely. (Democracy Now!)


A Tectonic Shift in Conservative World: Trump Accepts Nomination as Roger Ailes Ousted from Fox News

When Fox News Chair Roger Ailes, amid multiple accusations of sexual harassment, resigned on the same day the Republican Party welcomed its new presidential candidate, Amy Goodman got the reactions of several top TV news hosts who are in Cleveland covering the convention, including Jake Tapper of CNN, Shepard Smith of Fox News, Willie Geist of NBC, John Heilemann of Bloomberg and Chris Matthews of MSNBC. (Democracy Now!)

Does Trump Have a Subversive Partnership With Putin’s Propaganda Machine?

Jeff Stein reports for Newsweek:

The opponent wields a “firehose of falsehood” with “a shameless willingness to disseminate partial truths or outright fictions.” He “entertains, confuses and overwhelms the audience” with exaggerations and unfounded rumors. His technique is entirely new, confounding decades of conventional wisdom that says effective political messages should stay close to the truth.

Donald Trump? No, Vladimir Putin, who has piloted “a remarkable evolution in Russia’s approach to propaganda,” according to a new study from RAND, a think tank based in Santa Monica, California, which has been supplying the Pentagon and CIA with ideas since 1948. Despite ignoring past principles of propaganda, RAND says, Putin has “enjoyed some success” in his main goal: undermining Western unity, and specifically its military alliance, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO.

His success stories: The rise of Moscow-backed right-wing “populist” movements in Europe, along with Western disunity over Ukraine, Turkey, Syria and how to deal with Syrian refugees. And now Donald Trump?


U.S. Media Blames Putin Conspiracy for Homegrown Trump Phenomenon

Adam Johnson writes for AlterNet:

Donald Trump is the media’s favorite excuse to bash Official U.S. Enemies. His Rorschach politics that shift almost weekly allows overworked writers to project onto Trump whatever traits they need to make an analogy stick (and deadline met).

Over the past year Trump has been Nicolas MaduroJoseph Stalin, Kim Jong-Il, Saddam Hussein, an African dictator,Bashar al-Assad, Bernie Sanders, Fidel Castro, Ayatollah Khomeini, Hugo Chavez(a dozen times!), Mao Zedong, a Chinese communist (present day), a Chinese communist (1980s), Caligula, Rodrigo Duterte, Jeremy Corbyn, Pinochet, Norse god LokiBrexit, Napoleon, Barry Goldwater, Mussolini, Nero, Andrew Jackson,Voldemort, Groucho Marx, Adolf Hitler, Moqtada al-Sadr, Joseph Goebbels, L. Ron Hubbard, King George III, Richard Nixon, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Basically the entire cast of Game of Thrones, Batman vs. Superman, and Donald Trump himself. Twice.

The Daily Beast alone has accused Trump of simultaneously being a communist, a fascist, an Iraqi Shia cleric, an Iranian Shia cleric, a Republican president from the ’70s, a Russian president from the present, a Roman emperor, and a cult leader.

Put simply, Trump is whomever we need him to be.


Alex Jones and Roger Stone Interrupt The Young Turks Republican National Convention Coverage

The first video shows Alex Jones and Roger Stone interrupting The Young Turks coverage of the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland, while the second video shows Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks, explaining what happened. The third video features Infowars’ take on the clash.

Why defense stocks could keep soaring no matter who wins the election

Rebecca Ungarino reports for CNBC:

Two defense stocks hit 52-week highs this week, and may be heading higher. In a time of international market volatility and global conflict, some analysts say defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and L-3 Communications will continue to thrive. And the future of defense spending, and of these stocks, may not depend on who wins the election in November.

“I do think they will go higher,” Gina Sanchez of Chantico Global said Tuesday on CNBC’s “Trading Nation.” “The fundamentals support them; the fundamentals are rather scary fundamentals. … We have seen an increase in conflict around the world, and that has not only increased U.S. defense spending, but it’s also increased spending by its allies.”

“And if you look at both candidates, [Hillary] Clinton is hawkish, and she’s seen as likely supporting a strong military. And we know that [Donald] Trump is in favor of expanding the military, so I think the defense contractors on either side of that ticket are going to win.”


Oil Industry CEO Claims Democrats Have Done More For Oil

Lincoln Brown reports for Oil Price:

Mike Sheffield PioneerWith the Republican National Convention set to wrap up on Thursday, and the Democratic National Convention getting ready to kick off in Philadelphia next week, one prominent oil executive is noting that the industry has fared better under Democrats than Republicans.

Scott Sheffield, CEO of Pioneer Natural Resources, says that he has noticed the trend during his 42 years in the business.

That may sound strange considering the two parties’ diverse platforms when it comes to energy. The Republican party is touting deregulation and has said that it does not support the Paris Climate Accords. Going a few steps further, the party has plans to defund renewable energy, and open public lands and the outer continental shelf to drilling. Additionally, the party also wants to leave the regulation of fracking and drilling to the states, and increase oil and gas exports.

Conversely, the Democrats are calling for an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and oppose the expansion of oil and gas production. They also want to phase down energy production on public lands. The party supports the inquiries into the alleged “climate change cover-up” by Exxon Mobil, and wants to see the nation using only renewable energy by the middle of the century.


CEOs Meet in Secret Over the Sorry State of Public Companies

Andrew Ross Sorkin reports for The New York Times:

Warren E. Buffett quietly walked through the lobby of JPMorgan Chase’s headquarters on Park Avenue in Manhattan last summer and was ushered up to the 49th floor by a security guard, trying to avoid drawing too much attention. Laurence D. Fink, chairman of BlackRock, the world’s largest money manager — with more than $4 trillion — soon was also escorted upstairs. Abby Johnson, the chief executive of Fidelity (which invests more than $2 trillion), and Frederick William McNabb III, chief of Vanguard ($3 trillion), were also shepherded to the elevator.

In all, the parade included about a dozen chief executives of investment firms — T. Rowe Price, State Street — plus the head of a public pension fund and an activist investor. All had arrived for a meeting that they were told they would absolutely have to keep secret.

When they reached the 49th floor, they were met by JPMorgan Chase’s chief executive, Jamie Dimon.

The agenda — shaped over many conversations Mr. Dimon had had with his friend, Mr. Buffett — was to discuss the sorry state of publicly traded companies: too little trust and connection between shareholders and management, too many rules imposed by so-called governance experts and too many idiosyncratic accounting guidelines. As a result, much of the smart money in the United States is going — and staying — private, creating more companies that have less public accountability and transparency.


Revolving Doors Between Wall Street and Washington: Interview with Nomi Prins

Max Keiser talks to Nomi Prins, former banker and author of All the Presidents’ Bankers, about a solution to the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington D.C. They also discuss Hillary Clinton’s highly paid speeches to Goldman Sachs matter and whether or not Wall Street expects anything in return for its contributions to her campaign. (Keiser Report)

The Fall of Roger Ailes: Can Sexual Harassment Claims Oust the Biggest Man in Conservative Media?

Amy Goodman speaks to longtime media critic John Nichols about the confirmation from Roger Ailes’s lawyers that he’s in negotiations to step down as Fox News chair amid more than a half-dozen accusations of sexual harassment. (Democracy Now!)

The Murdochs Have Decided to Remove Roger Ailes, the Only Question Now Is When

Gabriel Sherman reports for New York Magazine:

Roger Ailes’s tenure as the head of Fox News may be coming to an end. Rupert Murdoch and sons Lachlan and James — co-chairmen and CEO, respectively, of parent company 21st Century Fox — have settled on removing the 76-year-old executive, say two sources briefed on a sexual-harassment investigation of Ailes being conducted by New York law firm Paul, Weiss. After reviewing the initial findings of the probe, James Murdoch is said to be arguing that Ailes should be presented with a choice this week to resign or face being fired. Lachlan is more aligned with their father, who thinks that no action should be taken until after the GOP convention this week. Another source confirms that all three are in agreement that Ailes needs to go.


Corporations Withdraw Funding from RNC as Donald Trump Headed to Nomination: Interview with Rashad Robinson

Amy Goodman speaks to Rashad Robinson, executive director of Color of Change, about the corporations that have dramatically scaled back or canceled their commitments to the the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, citing Donald Trump’s controversial comments about women, immigrants and minorities. (Democracy Now!)

Jonathan Pie: Mr Angry of TV comedy severs links with RT

Vanessa Thorpe reports for The Observer:

[…] Jonathan Pie, the foul-mouthed creation of actor Tom Walker, has become an internet sensation since the success of his short comic films in which his television journalist melts down on screen once he is “off air”. Pie rails against hypocrisy in politics and in television newsrooms and is disillusioned with both his job and the ethics of Westminster.

But Walker told the Observer he is to cut ties with his controversial television network, RT, formerly Russia Today. The news channel is owned by the Russian state and is often criticised for operating as a propaganda tool for Vladimir Putin. Walker said that, while he was grateful for the platform RT had given Jonathan Pie, he was now ready to move on.

“When I started out I had various offers and, funnily enough, RT were the ones that offered me total artistic control, which I really wanted,” Walker said. “I was perhaps a little naive, as I did not know about RT before, but it was important to me that I would not be controlled, although I had more lucrative offers.”


Donald Trump: The Raw and Naked Face of a System That Showers Speculators with Obscene Riches and Political Power

Paul Jay says the enablers of this surge in far right populism are the leaders of both major parties and the corporate media. (The Real News)

How the CIA Hoodwinked Hollywood

Nicholas Shou, the author of Spooked: How the CIA Manipulates the Media and Hoodwinks Hollywood, writes for The Atlantic:

The CIA has a long history of “spooking the news,” dating back to its earliest days when the legendary spymaster Allen Dulles and his top staff drank and dined regularly with the press elite of New York and Washington, and the agency boasted hundreds of U.S. and foreign journalists as paid and unpaid assets. In 1977, after this systematic media manipulation was publicly exposed by congressional investigations, the CIA created an Office of Public Affairs that was tasked with guiding press coverage of intelligence matters in a more transparent fashion. The agency insists that it no longer maintains a stable of friendly American journalists, and that its efforts to influence the press are much more above board. But, in truth, the intelligence empire’s efforts to manufacture the truth and mold public opinion are more vast and varied than ever before. One of its foremost assets? Hollywood.

The agency has established a very active spin machine in the heart of the entertainment capital, which works strenuously to make sure the cloak-and-dagger world is presented in heroic terms. Since the mid-1990s, but especially after 9/11, American screenwriters, directors, and producers have traded positive portrayal of the spy profession in film or television projects for special access and favors at CIA headquarters.

Ever since its inception in 1947, the CIA has been covertly working with Hollywood. But it wasn’t until the mid-1990s that the agency formally hired an entertainment industry liaison and began openly courting favorable treatment in films and television. During the Clinton presidency, the CIA took its Hollywood strategy to a new level—trying to take more control of its own mythmaking. In 1996, the CIA hired one of its veteran clandestine officers, Chase Brandon, to work directly with Hollywood studios and production companies to upgrade its image. “We’ve always been portrayed erroneously as evil and Machiavellian,” Brandon later told The Guardian. “It took us a long time to support projects that portray us in the light we want to be seen in.”


How Jeff Bezos Is Hurtling Toward World Domination

Alexander Nazaryan reports for Newsweek:

“The clouds surrounding are thickening,” began the Washington Post article by David Streitfeld on February 21, 2001. In the previous year, stockholders had suddenly learned that the internet was not immune to the boom-and-bust cycles of more earthbound forms of economic endeavor, and it seemed the Seattle-based bookseller was going to go the way of, the most infamous example of late 1990s cyberhubris. Streitfeld noted that one detractor of Amazon “expects the Internet retailer to run out of money to adequately fund its operations later this year.”

Amazon did not run out of money—nor was it subsumed into a bigger competitor like Wal-Mart—but it wasn’t until 2003 that it ended a year with a profit. That milestone led The Wall Street Journal to call it “one of the most powerful survivors on the Internet.”

Today, the question is not whether Amazon can survive but whether we can survive without Amazon. It is in the pantheon of corporations we need more than we need most federal agencies. Just as you can search for updates on Drake’s romantic life on Bing instead of Google or post updates about your own romantic life on Ello instead of Facebook, you can buy beef jerky in bulk on Overstock instead of Amazon. But why would you? Entirely credible reasons exist to dislike Amazon: its treatment of workers, its alleged evasion of taxes, a tendency toward monopoly. But you can’t escape it. The company is lodged deep into our culture, a complex creature that engenders equally complex emotions, much like turkey bacon and the Kardashians.


Andrea Leadsom’s Campaign Manager Condemns ‘Personal Attacks’ from Journalists as She Withdraws from Tory Leadership Race

Dominic Ponsford reports for Press Gazette:

leadsom_bbbcAndrea Leadsom’s campaign manager has accused journalists of using “spin and underhand tactics” against the former Tory leadership candidate.

She stepped down from the race today two days after coming under severe criticism for comments she made to The Times about motherhood.

Leadsom accused The Times of “gutter journalism”. However the paper’s recording of the interview appeared to back up its account of the conversation with reporter Rachel Sylvester.

The Times, Sunday Times, Daily Telegraph, Sun, Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday have all also came out against Leadsom in leader comments.


Some Pundits Think the Solution to Right-Wing Populism Is Less Democracy

Adam Johnson writes for Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting:

Foreign Policy: It's Time for the Elites to Rise UpThe core orthodoxies of neoliberalism are under attack by populist forces, and commentators are scrambling for a response. Some are suggesting more left-wing red meat. Others, a moment of self-reflection. But a number of pundits are doing that most noxious of political commentary pastimes—equating right and left responses to the failures of globalization and advocating that “elites” should fight back against the forces of inconvenient democracy.

First was Foreign Policy contributing editor James Traub (6/28/16), whose piece bore this cartoonishly Dickensian headline:

It’s Time for the Elites to Rise Up Against the Ignorant Masses

Magazine writers aren’t generally responsible for their headlines, but this one captured the flavor of Traub’s screed, which declared:

It is necessary to say that people are deluded and that the task of leadership is to un-delude them. Is that “elitist”? Maybe it is; maybe…it is now elitist to believe in reason, expertise, and the lessons of history.


One Shooter, No Snipers: Grossly Inaccurate Police and Media Information About Dallas Killings

Steven Rosenfeld writes for AlterNet:

The mainstream media in the U.S. and abroad badly botched the reporting of the Dallas police shooting that killed five officers Thursday, egged on by speculation by police sources that a team of snipers was bent on avenging the killing of two black men in Minnesota and Louisiana by white cops the day before.

Even after the Dallas Morning News changed its headline Friday afternoon to read, “Dallas sniper was loner, Army vet with stash of arms, bomb parts at home,” the article’s second paragraph said, “Four Dallas police officers and a DART officer were shot and killed in a coordinated sniper attack that followed a Thursday night protest.”

The incorrect sniper meme was repeated internationally, such as this headline from the British Mirror, “Dallas police shooting: ‘Black Power group’ claims responsibility for police killings and warns of more assassinations to come.”


The Guardian’s Katharine Viner: ‘Social media companies have become overwhelmingly powerful’

Jessica Davies reports for DigiDay:

Guardian News and Media’s editor-in-chief Katharine Viner’s prognosis of news publishing in an algorithm- and platform-dominated world is bleak.

Viner addressed a room full of senior marketers yesterday in her keynote at advertiser trade body ISBA’s annual lunch in London. During her speech she reinforced just how much technology and the rise of platforms have changed publishing, and redirected advertising spend.

She referred to a recent Reuters report that revealed a trove of information on people’s current news-consumption habits and showed just how dominant Facebook has become as a platform on which people find news.

“Social media companies have become overwhelmingly powerful in determining what we read and whether publishers make any money,” she said. “The idea of challenging the wide-open worldwide web has been replaced by platforms and publishers who maximize the amount of time you spend with them and find clever ways to stop you leaving. That may be great news for advertisers and the platforms themselves, but it’s a real concern for the news industry.”


Sexual Harassment in the Media

Tom Jacobs writes for Pacific Standard:

The news that former Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson has sued the network’s chief executive, Roger Ailes, alleging sexual harassment, is eye-catching due to the high-profile nature of both figures. But recent research suggests the sordid story she tells is far from unique.

In a 2012 survey of women working in the Australian news media, 57.3 percent reported they “had experienced sexist remarks or gestures, or had been sexually harassed” while on the job.

“A total of 53.3 percent said that the harassment had occurred within the past five years,” Louise North of Deakin University writes in a paper published late last year in the journal Feminist Media Studies. This suggests “sexual harassment is an ongoing, systemic problem.”