AOL Buys Huffington Post for $315 Million

  • metta

    Posts: 39155

    Feb 07, 2011 6:46 AM GMT
    AOL Buys Huffington Post for $315 Million

    http://gawker.com/5753578/aol-buys-huffington-post-for-315-million
  • shoelessj

    Posts: 511

    Feb 07, 2011 6:52 AM GMT
    wonder if they means they will be able to pay their contributors now. or pay the real news sites they steal content from.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2011 9:23 AM GMT
    Well, I see you beat me to posting it (and by a few hours at that.) Huge sum... and it is great for another news source to head off to corporate America.icon_rolleyes.gif
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Feb 07, 2011 1:50 PM GMT
    maybe Huffington will hire her friend Olberman, or even maybe Chris Mathews.

    ( who compared the tea party to the muslim brotherhood)


  • silverfox

    Posts: 3178

    Feb 07, 2011 1:56 PM GMT
    Well.... I think it is great that AOL has the money to buy such a thing. I mean....AOL? What have they been up to for the past 15 years?

    Maybe they will be the online "MSNBC" now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2011 1:56 PM GMT
    musclmed saidmaybe Huffington will hire her friend Olberman, or even maybe Chris Mathews.

    ( who compared the tea party to the muslim brotherhood)




    Maybe...

    What exactly is the difference between the Tea Party and the Muslim Brotherhood? Both are extremist movements based in xenophobia, religious conservatism and ignorance. icon_wink.gif
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Feb 07, 2011 2:05 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    musclmed saidmaybe Huffington will hire her friend Olberman, or even maybe Chris Mathews.

    ( who compared the tea party to the muslim brotherhood)




    Maybe...

    What exactly is the difference between the Tea Party and the Muslim Brotherhood? Both are extremist movements based in xenophobia, religious conservatism and ignorance. icon_wink.gif



    I guess your right?

    Muslim brotherhood believes in instilling the Quran all over the world, and has offshoots like Al-queda

    from wiki
    Tea party came about from over taxation, .....Its platform is explicitly populist[4][5][6] and is generally recognized as conservative and libertarian.[7][8] It endorses reduced government spending,[9][10] lower taxes,[10] reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit,[9] and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.[11]


    So I guess if you for freedom and less government it may seem to guys who sleep with a Carl Marx book under there pillow that anything tea party would be as bad as the anti-christ.


    Who said Chris Mathews was moderate and middle of the road?


    Chris Mathews is a liberal retread from the 80's who couldnt make it on capital hill and decided to go on TV
  • DCEric

    Posts: 3713

    Feb 07, 2011 2:09 PM GMT
    musclmed: It's Karl Marx, and if you believe that the Tea Party has no basis in racism and religion, you are as idealistic as Marx was.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Feb 07, 2011 2:24 PM GMT
    DCEric saidmusclmed: It's Karl Marx, and if you believe that the Tea Party has no basis in racism and religion, you are as idealistic as Marx was.



    You know you are wining when they bring out the red pen.


    So 2 Alaskan reporters were not fired for conspiring to make up fake reportings on Joe Millers campaign.

    The tea party is multi- cultural and has been smeared by left leaning liberals who fear the power they would loose from it. SIMPLE

    its a libertarian movement.

    If you believe this country wasn't founded on the basis of religion as well you are a student of good Karl.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2011 2:30 PM GMT
    AOL still exists?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2011 2:36 PM GMT
    west77 saidWell, I see you beat me to posting it (and by a few hours at that.) Huge sum... and it is great for another news source to head off to corporate America.icon_rolleyes.gif


    Maybe you should worry about the growth of government instead, seeing that there's never been a reported case in history where corporations have overtaken a nation and ruled with rampant despotism.

    We do, however, have a plethora of cases where people put their trust in their government to get corporations "in order" and the result was destruction of freedom in exchange for security. Ever heard of Hitler?...Or Castro?

    Anyway, I'm sick of trying to fix stupid.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2011 3:09 PM GMT
    There's several tons of irony here....

    Does anyone really care what's going on in the US anymore?
    Why would they?
    Did something actually happen?!?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2011 3:33 PM GMT
    lifecast2020 saidAOL still exists?


    I thought the same thing but apparently they do.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Feb 07, 2011 6:20 PM GMT
    Arianna will not be happy about this. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2011 6:37 PM GMT
    There IS a role for gov't - in regulating and preventing excessive greed from becoming a threat to the citizens at large.

    This regulatory power should also be keenly balanced so as not to impede just commerce.

    An example of this would be hedge funds or other financial entities that buy up huge scads of crucial commodities for trades while never actually taking delivery of the commodities.

    While some hedging of commodities can be useful to ameliorate sharp or unexpected losses or interruptions of those commodities, when done in excess (as was the case in the 2007 oil speculative bubble, and in the ongoing oil bubble that sees oil tankers parked out in the gulf and unable to unload) it drives up the prices of most everything else that depends upon oil - including food and heating oil costs.

    Some level of regulatory intervention is needed - even though the oil bubble will pop and the price point will come down, what was meant as a means for transport industries and suppliers of fuel to hedge against uncertainty in the markets by *taking delivery* of extra stocks of oil and betting against future prices, is being abused by the hedge fund managers and certain mega-banks to a point where it creates an artificial inflation that creates much suffering and inconvenience to the mass consumer.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2011 7:27 PM GMT
    Good, now AOL can be less conservative.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2011 7:35 PM GMT
    alphatrigger saidThere IS a role for gov't - in regulating and preventing excessive greed from becoming a threat to the citizens at large.

    This regulatory power should also be keenly balanced so as not to impede just commerce.

    An example of this would be hedge funds or other financial entities that buy up huge scads of crucial commodities for trades while never actually taking delivery of the commodities.

    While some hedging of commodities can be useful to ameliorate sharp or unexpected losses or interruptions of those commodities, when done in excess (as was the case in the 2007 oil speculative bubble, and in the ongoing oil bubble that sees oil tankers parked out in the gulf and unable to unload) it drives up the prices of most everything else that depends upon oil - including food and heating oil costs.

    Some level of regulatory intervention is needed - even though the oil bubble will pop and the price point will come down, what was meant as a means for transport industries and suppliers of fuel to hedge against uncertainty in the markets by *taking delivery* of extra stocks of oil and betting against future prices, is being abused by the hedge fund managers and certain mega-banks to a point where it creates an artificial inflation that creates much suffering and inconvenience to the mass consumer.



    This is very true.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2011 7:36 PM GMT
    Well, Huffington Post always got money from the likes of the Ford Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation, so if that doesn't represent corporate interests, I don't know what does. Now it's just taken to the next 'natural' level, I suppose.
  • hebrewman

    Posts: 1367

    Feb 07, 2011 8:09 PM GMT
    i'm sort of keeping an open mind about this. i'm sort of confused why she would sell out. but hey, i get most, if not all of my news from NPR and BBC. BBC has a much more accurate, world wide, view of things. i do miss olberman though. hopefully he will be back on somewhere. until then, rachel maddow and john stewart rule my DVR.
  • hebrewman

    Posts: 1367

    Feb 07, 2011 8:23 PM GMT
    heybreaux said
    hebrewman saidi'm sort of keeping an open mind about this. i'm sort of confused why she would sell out. but hey, i get most, if not all of my news from NPR and BBC. BBC has a much more accurate, world wide, view of things. i do miss olberman though. hopefully he will be back on somewhere. until then, rachel maddow and john stewart rule my DVR.


    315 million reasons why...


    i guess you're right. sort of a bummer though. i wonder if she will be welcomed on the daily show now......
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2011 8:42 PM GMT
    heybreaux saidI think you are confusing anti-trust laws with Glass Steagall.
    Futures markets are a zero sum game, so particpants can only go so far without wiping themselves out.


    I am considering the impact that large scale manipulations of market commodities has on the consumer - the silver speculation (as far as I know) does not have as much of an intermediate and expansive impact on consumers as oil speculation.

    While silver is used fir various large scale chemical, medical, and industrial applications, an artificial shortage of silver would take a while to touch the average consumer in terms of the prices of every day goods.

    When oil gets inflated several dollars per barrel in a single day, the causes (such as Gulf of Mexico sea weather, drilling platform issues, or tensions in the Middle East) are multiplied by a few orders of magnitude in speculative trading, where much of the trade is never actually sequestered off the market for future use.

    An airline or a trucking company or a fertilizer or heating oil supplier would sensibly buy future oil contracts with the intent of taking physical delivery of the product; but when hedge funds do this to significantly large volumes of oil, and this action drives the price of crude to triple digits, everyone from the farmers to truckers to computers to food buyers pay for the difference when the cost of the oil used to grow and ship our food to the stores is factored in.

    And the elderly suffer most as their generally decreased income earning potential often will not suffer the caprice of hedge fund driven oil speculation.

    Hence a need for some further degree of specific regulation to help soften the effects of this trade: when people have to choose between eating and heating and gas for the car over saving money to invest or spend on the economy, everyone begins to suffer (perhaps not the beneficiaries of the hedge funds or their managers though).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2011 8:47 PM GMT
    And as for Glass-Steagall, I would not complain if it was brought back in some modified form.

    "A well adjusted and true balance is ... delightful; but false scales are abominable".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2011 8:52 PM GMT
    I work in the alternative media, and I have to say that it is VERY difficult to remain truly independent in media. Most alternative media remain "independent" from direct corporate ownership, however, they tend to rely upon money and grants from philanthropic foundations, such as Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Open Society Institute (George Soros), etc. Go to the boards of any of these organizations, and it is very evident that they are highly concentrated centers of corporate, banking, educational and governmental power. These foundations have always been (since their creation at the beginning of the 20th century) the principle forces in society engaged in social engineering (they were the same organizations that funded the eugenics movement as well).

    In terms of media, they fund the alternative media as a form of controlling the opposition. One does not bite the hand that feeds you, therefore critique will always be blunted and lobotomized if your funding comes from those you seek to critique. It's a paradox, but that's the way it is for most alternative news sites. One president of the Ford Foundation once said, "Everything the Ford Foundation does is to make the world safe for Capitalism."

    The organization I work for remains independent and refuses money from corporations, government, educational institutions and foundations, however, that means we rely almost entirely upon donations and book sales, which doesn't leave us with much apart from our independence. But the 'alternative' media that take extensive foundation funding are pushed to the front. After all, Huffington would always appear as a guest in the corporate media and what not. So it seems to me that this is simply an eventual extension of foundation funding into corporate control.

    having said that, however, there are several authors and organizations which receive foundation funding that do provide a lot of good analysis and work, but they do always stop short at a point, it seems. But still, it seems as if we need some sort of citizen-funded and controlled media system (not through government, corporations, educational institutions or foundations), but something more reliable. But that would probably require a more democratic form of foundations to emerge, something like community foundations, where people contribute to a foundation and collectively decide where its money goes. Sorry if this seems irrelevant or strange, but very little is discussed or widely known about the role of foundations in society, but their impact over the past century has been astounding, and it's very well documented, just mostly not discussed or disseminated.

    Just some of the things, areas and institutions that foundations have started or contributed to shaping and changing:

    - the entire post-secondary education university system (starting in the U.S. and spreading to Europe and subsequently globalized)
    - included in that is the construction of particular separate subjects - ex: Political Science, Economics, etc.
    - eugenics (particularly Rockefeller and Carnegie), starting in the U.S. and going right into Nazi germany with the Rock. Found. funding Nazi scientists (including Dr. Josef Mengele and his "experiments" on twins)
    - population control
    - environmental sciences
    - the environmental movement (major environmental/conservation organizations founded with and continually funded by foundations, corporations and banks are taking over that role now though)
    - genetics (largely shaped by Rock. Found.)
    - psychology, psychiatry and pharmacology
    - alternative media
    - civil rights movement (their funding was strategically designed to support organizations and groups that favoured making legal changes to the system, minimizing the influence of organizations that sought to "change" the system as opposed to joining it)
    - anti-globalization movement (the NGOs, World Social Forum, all funded by foundations in order to organize the anti-globalization movement into providing an 'alternative' form of globalization rather than rejecting it altogether, also bringing NGOs into the process of globalization, being brought to the table of trade negotiations, etc.)
    - and the list goes on and on and on

    And before anyone jumps onto the left/right absurd paradigm claiming that these are all "liberal" foundations and thus, "liberals are bad," there are plenty of billionaire philanthropic foundations on the right. Take the Tea Party movement. It started out organically, and emerged as several organized protests against Federal Reserve banks across the country, and quickly became co-opted by billionaire neo-conservatives and is now owned (essentially) by the Republican Party, making it totally useless to the advancement of society, and in fact, counter productive and dangerous.

    But before anyone makes claims of "conspiracy theory", I would highly recommend reading some of the extremely well documented cases of foundation influence. Just because it isn't widely discussed, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Here are a few good books on the subject:

    - Joan Roelofs, "Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism"
    - Mark Dowie, "American Foundations: An Investigative History"
    - Daniel faber, "Foundations for Social Change: Critical Perspectives on Philanthropy and Popular Movements"
    - Edwin Black, "War Against the Weak: Eugenics, and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race."
    - Matthew Connelley, "Fatal Misconception"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2011 9:11 PM GMT
    musclmed said
    Christian73 said
    musclmed saidmaybe Huffington will hire her friend Olberman, or even maybe Chris Mathews.

    ( who compared the tea party to the muslim brotherhood)




    Maybe...

    What exactly is the difference between the Tea Party and the Muslim Brotherhood? Both are extremist movements based in xenophobia, religious conservatism and ignorance. icon_wink.gif



    I guess your right?

    Muslim brotherhood believes in instilling the Quran all over the world, and has offshoots like Al-queda

    from wiki
    Tea party came about from over taxation, .....Its platform is explicitly populist[4][5][6] and is generally recognized as conservative and libertarian.[7][8] It endorses reduced government spending,[9][10] lower taxes,[10] reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit,[9] and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.[11]


    So I guess if you for freedom and less government it may seem to guys who sleep with a Carl Marx book under there pillow that anything tea party would be as bad as the anti-christ.


    Who said Chris Mathews was moderate and middle of the road?


    Chris Mathews is a liberal retread from the 80's who couldnt make it on capital hill and decided to go on TV


    What the Tea Party says it is, and what it actually is are two very different things.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2011 9:25 PM GMT
    heybreaux said
    MeOhMy saidWell, Huffington Post always got money from the likes of the Ford Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation, so if that doesn't represent corporate interests, I don't know what does. Now it's just taken to the next 'natural' level, I suppose.


    And while Huff Po was "reporting" about Bank of America being evil and being too big to fail, all the while having ads appear from BOA to open an account on the right...so accepting bailout money is OK Arianna? No one either noticed or called her out on that one, but I remember laughing see the "Banks are Evil" / "Open an account" LOL

    Arianna is not only a Washington insider but knows many CEOs of public companies. Don't let her fool you! She is a spinster and I honestly (knowing her background) have no idea why she has so many loyal followers. She speaks with confidence and I guess that is what news is all about...once the average person sees something in print three times, they committ it to memory as "fact"


    Yes, she's one of the best spinmeisters around.

    I lost interest in her after I heard about David Geffen's pro-Obama outing with major media elites, which happened to include Arianna Hunffington. Geffen was working hard to get Obama elected, and hosted social and new media giants on his yacht. They took a trip down to the Caribbean ... obviously to address the best way to influence public opinion in the press.

    Not that this is unusual, because Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers are old pros at these type of things, but it sickens me. Any media outlet that works that transparently is not doing itself any favors. But Arianna doesn't care about objectivity in journalism. She just pocketed some nice coin. Why should she care?