THE SCANDAL CONTINUES - THE FBI HAS OPENED AN INVESTIGATION INTO MURDOCH'S NEWS CORP

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

    Jul 13, 2011 9:53 PM GMT
    http://news.yahoo.com/ap-source-fbi-probing-news-corp-9-11-185600706.html

    Who knows what will be revealed, and how much more illegal activity will be discovered.

    Apparently, staining the reputation of news media is only part of the modus operandi of Fox "News" and the rest of Murdoch's media empire.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2011 10:05 PM GMT
    I'm loving this scandal. It's pure schadenfreude.

    Rumor has it that the shareholders (primarily the Saudis) are going to demand everyone with the last name Murdoch is thrown out. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 13, 2011 11:51 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidI'm loving this scandal. It's pure schadenfreude.


    Oddly enough I do too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 12:10 AM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    Apparently, staining the reputation of news media is only part of the modus operandi of Fox "News" and the rest of Murdoch's media empire.


    Wait... "staining the reputation of the news media"???

    Okay, Murdoch is awful and his media empire is particularly absurd in its propaganda; but, if you think that the rest of the media is much better, you're being ignorant. Murdoch's empire is more absurd because it plays to the lowest common denominator, it's more emotion-driven than the rest of the propaganda outlets, and more simplified for its sheeple audience. However, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc., are all propaganda outlets aimed at simplifying the world for simplified audiences. For those who are capable of reading (you know, the ones that HAVE maps - shout out to Miss Teen South Carolina), you have the NY Times and the Washington Post as more sophisticated propaganda for a more intelligent audience; however, it is still propaganda.

    Media propaganda, especially in the United States (though for most of the Western world in general), functions on two major principles:

    1) Everything is black and white: it is "us vs. them", "good vs. evil", etc etc. This way, criticism of policies and strategies is erased, because it's simplified to - as Bush so eloquently put - "you're either with us or you're against us." This way, people don't have to THINK, they can just choose a side and repeat what they hear. It's simple, AND, as a bonus, the sheep get to pretend like they are "informed".

    2) The media must maintain a constant state of amnesia: there is no historical memory in the media - whether network tv or print. That way, whenever something is reported as 'news', it can be consumed in a vacuum and removed from all historical context, so that it fits in properly with the "black and white" reality that the media propagate. Just as Orwell articulated the "memory hole", where everytime history is re-written to fit the party line, the old history is thrown into the memory hole and forgotten, while the new history becomes the "only" history that ever was. And this continues ad nausiem.

    So, yes, Murdoch's media empire is a theatre of the absurd, and anyone who thinks Fox News is reputable in any capacity may as well go looking for the fantasy world of Narnia in their local wardrobe. However, if anyone believes CNN, MSNBC, or the New York Times are the bastions of truth equally live in a fantasy world. Just because one has a more respectable FORMAT and METHOD of information dissemination (see: propaganda), does not make it any more TRUE.

    So saying that Murdoch has "stained the reputation of the news media" is kind of like saying that the last person to leave a port-o-potty made it smell like shit... it's a fucking port-o-potty, all it IS is full of shit. It smelled of shit before they got there, and it will long after they leave.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 12:20 AM GMT
    rexexex said
    MeOhMy said
    rickrick91 said
    Apparently, staining the reputation of news media is only part of the modus operandi of Fox "News" and the rest of Murdoch's media empire.


    saying that Murdoch has "stained the reputation of the news media" is kind of like saying that the last person to leave a port-o-potty made it smell like shit... it's a fucking port-o-potty, all it IS is full of shit. It smelled of shit before they got there, and it will long after they leave.



    honestly, sometimes i understand and think it's great that you're studying reportation but when you go off on rants like this, i just really stop giving a shit damn.

    whatever you had to say, could've been done in that one single paragraph.. you know, k.i.s.s. ? icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif


    Oh, you mean, play to the lowest common denominator? Duly noted.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 12:21 AM GMT
    Your short attention span is not my fault. Maybe turn off CNN.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 12:25 AM GMT
    Happy to see intelligent discussion is still so present in the forums.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 12:37 AM GMT
    "The Sleaziness Of His Media Empire Is Starting to Be Revealed "

    Starting to be revealed?!?!?
    That guy was a sleazebag the day he got off the boat from Australia.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 12:45 AM GMT
    " if you think that the rest of the media is much better, you're being ignorant. "

    MeOhMy,

    I've read your posts often enough to know that you are bright and well informed.

    BUT you also often oversimplify to the point of absurdity.

    In this case you tell us that because all media has some bias(Even though most strive for balance), ALL media is equivalent to the ABSOLUTE BIAS of FOX News and other properties of NewsCorp.

    It's true that HuffingtonPost on the Left and National Review on the Right are equally unbalanced. But even they are refreshingly honest by comparison to FOX and the rest of Murdock's empire.

    When the NYTimes, WashingtonPost or The Economist present a fact-based story which incriminates a Republican they are seen as Lefties. The Right simply can't take criticism. The fact is that those 3 examples are equally bloodthirsty for Liberal hypocrisy and criminality too.

    MeOhMy, I know that you aren't partisan.....especially involving American politics. However, your cynicism is blurring your ability to see some obvious relative differences.

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

    Jul 14, 2011 1:26 AM GMT
    PresentMind, sorry but you're wrong all the media are the same they are there not to informe you but put their idea into people mind to scare them and not informe you truly sad to said put you need to put off your TV and open your eyes don't want to judge you but the world where we live is so corrupted everywhere...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 1:33 AM GMT
    MeOhMy, that was beautiful expository. Particulary the porta-potty comparison. Thank you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 1:34 AM GMT
    PresentMind said" if you think that the rest of the media is much better, you're being ignorant. "

    MeOhMy,

    I've read your posts often enough to know that you are bright and well informed.

    BUT you also often oversimplify to the point of absurdity.

    In this case you tell us that because all media has some bias(Even though most strive for balance), ALL media is equivalent to the ABSOLUTE BIAS of FOX News and other properties of NewsCorp.

    It's true that HuffingtonPost on the Left and National Review on the Right are equally unbalanced. But even they are refreshingly honest by comparison to FOX and the rest of Murdock's empire.

    When the NYTimes, WashingtonPost or The Economist present a fact-based story which incriminates a Republican they are seen as Lefties. The Right simply can't take criticism. The fact is that those 3 examples are equally bloodthirsty for Liberal hypocrisy and criminality too.

    MeOhMy, I know that you aren't partisan.....especially involving American politics. However, your cynicism is blurring your ability to see some obvious relative differences.



    I fall somewhere in the middle of your two opinions. I accept that what drives most media operations is either a) profits (e.g. ratings, subscribers) or b) propaganda. So I read critically and focus primarily on facts (Bill was passed. Notable person dead.)

    But the vast majority of what we consume in terms of US media is playing to the lowest common denominator, constantly trying to create a sense of panic and urgency, etc. I do watch Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann because I find her to be refreshingly honest and willing to correct herself and he just makes me laugh.

    For actual news, I tend to read The Nation and a few blogs that I trust.

    All that said, Fox News and the Murdoch empire as a whole went far and away from what we usually expect from corporate media.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 1:37 AM GMT
    I'm also enjoying all the talking heads on the other networks feigning surprise at the whole situation. It was always just a matter of time before news corpse was found very, very red handed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 1:47 AM GMT
    rexexex saidMeOhMy said
    saying that Murdoch has "stained the reputation of the news media" is kind of like saying that the last person to leave a port-o-potty made it smell like shit... it's a fucking port-o-potty, all it IS is full of shit. It smelled of shit before they got there, and it will long after they leave.

    honestly, sometimes i understand and think it's great that you're studying reportation but when you go off on rants like this, i just really stop giving a shit damn.

    whatever you had to say, could've been done in that one single paragraph.. you know, k.i.s.s. ? icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif

    Well, at least we know who's pro-Murdoch here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 2:47 AM GMT
    Ravco saidI'm also enjoying all the talking heads on the other networks feigning surprise at the whole situation. It was always just a matter of time before news corpse was found very, very red handed.


    And the fact that Faux News has barely mentioned it. Hilarious!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 2:59 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    Ravco saidI'm also enjoying all the talking heads on the other networks feigning surprise at the whole situation. It was always just a matter of time before news corpse was found very, very red handed.

    And the fact that Faux News has barely mentioned it. Hilarious!

    Well naturally. They're under orders from Murdoch to minimize it. He owns them, they do what he says. We all know it's not a real news channel. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 4:03 AM GMT
    jprichva said
    Ravco saidMeOhMy, that was beautiful expository. Particulary the porta-potty comparison. Thank you.

    Yes, it was lovely. What a shame that it was nonsense.





    LOL!
    Indeed.
    Poor MeOhMy is addicted to the BS idea that "both parties suck equally".
    It's BS, but very trendy.

    Part of that trendy nonsense is the notion that just because most media outlets have some bias or point of view - they're therefore equally as guilty of bias as the blatantly and extremely biased Fox "News".
    It's false.

    Fox is owned and operated by right-wingers who push their pro-right-wing point of view much harder and more deliberately than the mainstream media does.

    If MOM had said that MSNBC is as biased as Fox - I would have accepted that as a legitmate opinion.
    But what he posted is an extreme and bogus bunch of nonsense.

    As other posters have noted.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Jul 14, 2011 4:25 AM GMT
    Art_Deco saidWell, at least we know who's pro-Murdoch here.


    You mean like Apple?

    Murdoch’s News Corp. Launches The Daily for Apple’s iPad

    Live from The Daily launch event, with Apple's Eddy Cue
    11:07AM "Good morning, I'm Rupert Murdoch and I'm here to welcome you to the launch of The Daily... first I would like to thank Steve Jobs. He's given us this incredible new tablet and given us a new platform. Steve has been a champion of The Daily since day one, along with the brilliant Eddy Cue."

    11:41AM Has Steve Jobs said anything about the product? Murdoch: Steve called me last week and said that the app was really terrific, he was extremely flattering.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 4:44 AM GMT
    The Propaganda Model Revisited
    http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/199607--.htm

    John Pilger
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/04/afghanistan.terrorism7

    Watch John Pilger's incredible documentaries (for free online), to see what a REAL journalist is:
    http://www.johnpilger.com/filmography

    The belief that American media (with the exception of Fox News) is a "good" source of information flies in the face of any reasonable critique and analysis of how the American media has functioned in the past century. Once upon a time, America had a vibrant, expressive, critical and flourishing media, the age of 'Muckracking journalism' - in the latter 19th century and going into the early 20th century. However, with the expansion of communications on a much larger scale than ever before, corporate control grew lock-in-step. As much of the muckraking journalism was anti-capitalist and anti-establishment and highly critical, it became ever more necessary for the growing media companies to control the growth of the media itself.

    One need only look at the countless, seemingly never-ending list of atrocities supported by the West and the United States in particular, over the past 60 years, in order to see how the media in the United States (and the West more generally) is propaganda. Western and American-supported or orchestrated atrocities are either underreported, misreported, or not reported at all. With literally dozens upon dozens of US-supported and orchestrated coups, destabilization campaigns, wars, interventions, support to death squads and terrorists in nations all over the world... there is a reason most people don't know about it. Though it is extensively documented, it is not widely disseminated. In fact, the media either justify or ignore these events altogether.

    But no, I suppose that this is a sign of a truly "reliable" media. You can always rely on them to tell you what to think and how to think. And it's not really surprising or difficult to see how the influence is wielded. Simply go to the website of any major media conglomerate, and look at its board of directors and executive management teams, and read their biographies. You will find individuals from banks, major corporations, the military and weapons industries, drug manufacturers, oil and energy conglomerates, and former government officials. U.S. foreign policy serves the interests of American and indeed, global banks and corporations. Since they own the media, the media supports U.S. foreign policy, and hides the true nature of geopolitics from the people.

    The American empire runs around the world, plunging billions into poverty (through the World Bank and IMF), or killing millions through sanctions, destabilization, coups and wars, or supporting oppressive and brutal regimes which oppress their own populations (or did we already forget about Egypt?). The major banks and corporations profit off of this global plunder of peoples and resources. Since they own the media, the media presents a view of the world in which America is spreading democracy and freedom, or intervening in nations for "humanitarian" reasons, bombing people to "save them", ostensibly. A great global war of conquest for resources is called a "War on Terror." The media decides who the "worthy" victims are, and who the "unworthy" victims are.

    Just take Libya. Rebel groups being killed by the Libyan government are deemed "worthy" victims. Black Africans in Libya who are being ethnically cleansed by the rebel groups are deemed "unworthy" victims. This is a necessary tactic for the media to employ because to serve U.S. objectives and justify the war (and potential occupation in the future), the rebels have been selected as the "good guys", while everyone else are the "bad guys." This reinforces a black and white version of reality and conflict, of which reality is never truly reflective.

    So, the fact that the rebel groups are affiliated with al-Qaeda may be reported, but it is neither widely disseminated or known.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

    The fact that the rebel groups we are arming and supporting are committing ethnic cleansing of black Africans, is also not widely disseminated.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304887904576395143328336026.html

    These facts are forgotten to the "memory hole" because they do not fit in with a black and white - good vs. bad - view of the conflict or world. It becomes harder to justify the rebels as democratic freedom fighters when they are linked with al-Qaeda and commit ethnic cleansing. In that context, the legitimacy of the whole war is thrown into question.

    This general model of "worthy" vs. "unworthy" victims is used in nearly every conflict zone around the world: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Israel/Palestine, etc.

    But no, I suppose it's just "nonsense" that the U.S. media is propaganda. Or maybe it's the U.S. media that's "nonsense."
  • wild_sky360

    Posts: 1492

    Jul 14, 2011 5:08 AM GMT
    P E R F E C T
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 5:10 AM GMT
    http://www.johnpilger.com/videos/the-war-you-dont-see-trailer

    In the middle of watching "The War You Don't See"
    It covers the stuff you talked about in the last post about worthy and unworthy victims in the wars etc. The British media and elites are just as guilty with their selective reporting and (mis?)information dissemination.
  • wild_sky360

    Posts: 1492

    Jul 14, 2011 5:12 AM GMT
    I wonder why we don't see Pilger and Chomsky and Zinn in mainstream media much?
    Reality is too painful for most people to face.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 5:21 AM GMT
    MeOhMy saidThe Propaganda Model Revisited
    http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/199607--.htm

    John Pilger
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/04/afghanistan.terrorism7

    Watch John Pilger's incredible documentaries (for free online), to see what a REAL journalist is:
    http://www.johnpilger.com/filmography

    The belief that American media (with the exception of Fox News) is a "good" source of information flies in the face of any reasonable critique and analysis of how the American media has functioned in the past century. Once upon a time, America had a vibrant, expressive, critical and flourishing media, the age of 'Muckracking journalism' - in the latter 19th century and going into the early 20th century. However, with the expansion of communications on a much larger scale than ever before, corporate control grew lock-in-step. As much of the muckraking journalism was anti-capitalist and anti-establishment and highly critical, it became ever more necessary for the growing media companies to control the growth of the media itself.

    One need only look at the countless, seemingly never-ending list of atrocities supported by the West and the United States in particular, over the past 60 years, in order to see how the media in the United States (and the West more generally) is propaganda. Western and American-supported or orchestrated atrocities are either underreported, misreported, or not reported at all. With literally dozens upon dozens of US-supported and orchestrated coups, destabilization campaigns, wars, interventions, support to death squads and terrorists in nations all over the world... there is a reason most people don't know about it. Though it is extensively documented, it is not widely disseminated. In fact, the media either justify or ignore these events altogether.

    But no, I suppose that this is a sign of a truly "reliable" media. You can always rely on them to tell you what to think and how to think. And it's not really surprising or difficult to see how the influence is wielded. Simply go to the website of any major media conglomerate, and look at its board of directors and executive management teams, and read their biographies. You will find individuals from banks, major corporations, the military and weapons industries, drug manufacturers, oil and energy conglomerates, and former government officials. U.S. foreign policy serves the interests of American and indeed, global banks and corporations. Since they own the media, the media supports U.S. foreign policy, and hides the true nature of geopolitics from the people.

    The American empire runs around the world, plunging billions into poverty (through the World Bank and IMF), or killing millions through sanctions, destabilization, coups and wars, or supporting oppressive and brutal regimes which oppress their own populations (or did we already forget about Egypt?). The major banks and corporations profit off of this global plunder of peoples and resources. Since they own the media, the media presents a view of the world in which America is spreading democracy and freedom, or intervening in nations for "humanitarian" reasons, bombing people to "save them", ostensibly. A great global war of conquest for resources is called a "War on Terror." The media decides who the "worthy" victims are, and who the "unworthy" victims are.

    Just take Libya. Rebel groups being killed by the Libyan government are deemed "worthy" victims. Black Africans in Libya who are being ethnically cleansed by the rebel groups are deemed "unworthy" victims. This is a necessary tactic for the media to employ because to serve U.S. objectives and justify the war (and potential occupation in the future), the rebels have been selected as the "good guys", while everyone else are the "bad guys." This reinforces a black and white version of reality and conflict, of which reality is never truly reflective.

    So, the fact that the rebel groups are affiliated with al-Qaeda may be reported, but it is neither widely disseminated or known.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

    The fact that the rebel groups we are arming and supporting are committing ethnic cleansing of black Africans, is also not widely disseminated.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304887904576395143328336026.html

    These facts are forgotten to the "memory hole" because they do not fit in with a black and white - good vs. bad - view of the conflict or world. It becomes harder to justify the rebels as democratic freedom fighters when they are linked with al-Qaeda and commit ethnic cleansing. In that context, the legitimacy of the whole war is thrown into question.

    This general model of "worthy" vs. "unworthy" victims is used in nearly every conflict zone around the world: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Israel/Palestine, etc.

    But no, I suppose it's just "nonsense" that the U.S. media is propaganda. Or maybe it's the U.S. media that's "nonsense."




    The U.S. media is pretty useless.
    It's ratings driven entertainment.
    It doesn't educate or inform the American people.
    It's usually doesn't even try to.
    They care more about presenting slick packaging and production values than they do about the content of their "reporting".
    There are many important things going on in the world that don't get covered.
    And there are many silly sideshow stories that get heavily covered.
    No one should rely on any one news source for coverage of what's going on in the world.

    But, we aren't talking about whether or not the media thoroughly or accurately covers every important event in the world.
    We're talking about a news source twisting and distorting the news to make one party look good and the other party look bad.
    We're talking about a news source that tries to misinform the public into voting for a particular party.
    We're talking about the blatant bias of Fox "News".

    Fox goes far beyond merely failing to thoroughly and accurately cover world events.
    In fact, Fox "News" was DELIBERATELY created to be a "news" channel that would push a pro-right-wing line propaganda disguised as "news".
    It was the brainchild of Fox head Roger Ailes 40 years ago, when he worked in the Nixon White House.
    http://gawker.com/5814150/roger-ailes-secret-nixon+erY-blueprint-for-fox-news

    There is no other news channel that was created to be a propaganda outlet for a particular party the that way Fox was.
    There is no other news channel that's owned and operated by people who have the specific intent to support and help elect a particular party to power the way that Fox is.

    Fox was deliberately and specifically created to brainwash and propagandize the masses.
    No other news channel is made up of people who - from the top to the bottom - are all working together to spread a particular line of political propaganda the way that Fox is.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 5:29 AM GMT
    MeOhMy, well you know your subject thanks you learn me something today
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 5:39 AM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    jprichva said
    Ravco saidMeOhMy, that was beautiful expository. Particulary the porta-potty comparison. Thank you.

    Yes, it was lovely. What a shame that it was nonsense.


    LOL!
    Indeed.
    Poor MeOhMy is addicted to the BS idea that "both parties suck equally".
    It's BS, but very trendy.

    But what he posted is an extreme and bogus bunch of nonsense.

    As other posters have noted.


    Perhaps it is "trendy" because people are FINALLY waking up to the fact that the mainstream media is a giant propaganda machine, and that both parties are EQUALLY controlled by powerful financial and corporate interests.

    In 1933, President FDR wrote a letter to Col. Edward M. House in which he stated, "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson."

    If that was the case in 1933, imagine the situation today. In fact, you don't even have to 'imagine', you could actually do research and figure out what the real "nonsense" is.

    Here, I'll help you!

    Let's start with the obvious example of how corporations and banks control our information through the media.

    News Corporation:
    Board of directors: http://www.newscorp.com/corp_gov/bod.html

    Time Warner:
    Board of Directors: http://www.timewarner.com/our-company/management/board-of-directors/

    The Walt Disney Company:
    Board of Directors: http://corporate.disney.go.com/corporate/board_of_directors.html

    General Electric: (major owner of NBC Universal, as well as a military corporation in its own right):
    Board of Directors: http://www.ge.com/company/leadership/directors.html

    The New York Times Company:
    Board of Directors: http://www.nytco.com/company/board_of_directors/index.html

    The Washington Post Company:
    Board of Directors: http://www.washpostco.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=62487&p=irol-govhistdirectors

    Now, go read all the biographies of the members of the boards. If no biography is provided, a simple google search can solve that problem. Then, go to the executive management of each company, and do the same. If, after all that, you are still confused as to who controls your information, just go about your business believing in fairy tales. However, I will do a favour for you and provide an example with the Washington Post Company, presumably one of the more "respectable" sources of information.

    The board of the Washington Post Company includes:

    Lee Bollinger: President of Columbia University, Deputy Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

    Barry Diller: Chairman and Senior Executive of IAC and Chairman of Expedia, Inc., former Chairman and CEO of Fox Inc."and was responsible for the creation of Fox Broadcasting Company." Yes, a member of the board of the Washington Post was responsible for "the creation of Fox Broadcasting Company." He also serves on the board of the Coca-Cola Company.

    Thomas S. Gayner: president and chief investment officer of Markel Corporation, a publicly traded insurance holding company

    Anne M. Mulcahy: most recently chairman of Xerox Corporation, and is a board director of Catalyst, Johnson & Johnson, and Target Corporation

    Ronald L. Olson: a partner in the Los Angeles office of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, serves as a director of Berkshire Hathaway, Edison International, City National Corporation, and Western Asset Trusts and several non-profits, including the RAND Corporation (formerly chair), the Mayo Clinic, the California Institute of Technology, and Nuclear Threat Initiative

    Larry D. Thompson: retired in May 2011 as Senior Vice President of Government Affairs, General Counsel and Secretary of PepsiCo, served as a Senior Fellow with The Brookings Institution, on the boards of directors of the Southern Company and Cbeyond. He also serves on the boards of various Franklin, Templeton and Mutual Series Funds.

    G. Richard Wagoner: Retired Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, General Motors Corporation; vice chair of the Board of Trustees of Duke University and a member of the Board of Dean’s Advisors of the Harvard Business School, Duke’s Fuqua School of Business Advisory Board and the Detroit Country Day School Board. He is a member of The Business Council and the Mayor of Shanghai’s International Business Leaders Advisory Council.