Reuters: Special Report: How AT&T helped build far-right One America News. So CNN’s parent company is funding OAN. (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    SaintForLife

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Oct 5, 2019
    Messages
    5,534
    Reaction score
    2,622
    Location
    Madisonville
    Offline
    One America News, the far-right network whose fortunes and viewership rose amid the triumph and tumult of the Trump administration, has flourished with support from a surprising source: AT&T Inc, the world's largest communications company.

    A Reuters review of court records shows the role AT&T played in creating and funding OAN, a network that continues to spread conspiracy theories about the 2020 election and the COVID-19 pandemic.

    OAN founder and chief executive Robert Herring Sr has testified that the inspiration to launch OAN in 2013 came from AT&T executives.

    “They told us they wanted a conservative network,” Herring said during a 2019 deposition seen by Reuters. “They only had one, which was Fox News, and they had seven others on the other [leftwing] side. When they said that, I jumped to it and built one.”

    Since then, AT&T has been a crucial source of funds flowing into OAN, providing tens of millions of dollars in revenue, court records show. Ninety percent of OAN’s revenue came from a contract with AT&T-owned television platforms, including satellite broadcaster DirecTV, according to 2020 sworn testimony by an OAN accountant.

    Herring has testified he was offered $250 million for OAN in 2019. Without the DirecTV deal, the accountant said under oath, the network’s value “would be zero.”

    Dallas-based AT&T, a mobile-phone and Internet provider, also owns entertainment giant Warner Media, which includes CNN and HBO. AT&T acquired DirecTV in 2015 and in August spun off the satellite service, retaining a 70% share in the new, independently managed company. AT&T’s total U.S. television subscriber base, including satellite and streaming services, fell from 26 million in 2015 to 15.4 million as of August.





    I’m sure Brian Stelter & Oliver Darcy will be all over this. 😂
     
    Now this is a good post! And yeah, AT&T basically being the main corporate force behind CNN and OAN is effed up. But no surprise as almost all media today exists only to entertain and generate revenue.
     
    At what point is it okay to say whatever you want, regardless of the impact? I know we can’t yell fire in a theater, because it would immediately lead to people panicking and potentially causing deaths, but if the impact is more indirect, there should be some repercussions.
     
    Now this is a good post! And yeah, AT&T basically being the main corporate force behind CNN and OAN is effed up. But no surprise as almost all media today exists only to entertain and generate revenue.
    Yea I’m not even going to act surprised. Fox basically siphons all that ad money, I’m really more surprised bigger corporations weren’t tapping that well sooner. I feel like the conservative networks would have a broader reach with ads - I just don’t know any people who aren’t on the “Fox side” of everything who still watch cable news. Not that I’m dealing with some massive sample size, but younger people skew liberal and cable news has been replaced by podcasts and web content.
     
    It’s stories like this. is why I am solidly left. I don’t blame AT&T for this. They are a corporation making money. No more no less. This is what they are in existence to do. Make more money. Who cares about lying about our elections or American values or well-being. Corporations don’t. Only to the extent the law makes them care.

    Zuckerberg isn’t a monster. He’s a CEO of one of the largest corporations in the world. His personal opinion doesn’t matter any more. Only what business decisions to make that will drive revenue. If he doesn’t- say he grew a conscience- they will promptly fire him and replace him with someone that would keep making money through horribly manipulative algorithms. Which I don’t have a problem with in the slightest professionally. Personally it makes my skin crawl. Alas, they are just doing what they do - and the law is more than fine with it. Make money.

    Lying to rednecks and mouth breathers about stolen elections and ivermectin make for clicks. That makes money. End of story. No evil megalomaniac trying to take over the world. Just a person whose job it is to make the stock price go up. Period.

    The facts remain that there are numerous programs that are too big to be handled by an individual or group of individuals (say a town). Things such as highways, airport traffic control, social welfare, police, military, etc.

    I think we all can agree on this- even @Farb :)

    So the questions becomes, who do you trust to own these programs?

    Some say (Right wing) private businesses should be deployed to provide these types of services. Some believe it should be the government (leftists).

    I do not trust corporations to preside over these programs. As I stated prior, Corporations are in existence for one reason- make money. Even not for profits focus heavily on revenue generation. When your first and main reason for existence is to drive revenue then you aren’t going to be good at public service.

    On the other hand. the Government’s modus operandi, while slow, bloated and grossly incompetent, is based in public service. New revenue streams aren’t even considered. Taxes, restitution and tolls are the government’s revenue drivers. Same as it ever was (to quote David Byrne).

    So while the government might not be the most efficient and cost effective organization, that shouldn’t be the goal of government. Public service is.

    Corporate schools, hospitals, etc suck out loud. Kaiser Permanente shouldn’t be allowed to call themselves a medical provider. More like a human health factory.
     
    It’s stories like this. is why I am solidly left. I don’t blame AT&T for this. They are a corporation making money. No more no less. This is what they are in existence to do. Make more money. Who cares about lying about our elections or American values or well-being. Corporations don’t. Only to the extent the law makes them care.

    Zuckerberg isn’t a monster. He’s a CEO of one of the largest corporations in the world. His personal opinion doesn’t matter any more. Only what business decisions to make that will drive revenue. If he doesn’t- say he grew a conscience- they will promptly fire him and replace him with someone that would keep making money through horribly manipulative algorithms. Which I don’t have a problem with in the slightest professionally. Personally it makes my skin crawl. Alas, they are just doing what they do - and the law is more than fine with it. Make money.

    Lying to rednecks and mouth breathers about stolen elections and ivermectin make for clicks. That makes money. End of story. No evil megalomaniac trying to take over the world. Just a person whose job it is to make the stock price go up. Period.

    The facts remain that there are numerous programs that are too big to be handled by an individual or group of individuals (say a town). Things such as highways, airport traffic control, social welfare, police, military, etc.

    I think we all can agree on this- even @Farb :)

    So the questions becomes, who do you trust to own these programs?

    Some say (Right wing) private businesses should be deployed to provide these types of services. Some believe it should be the government (leftists).

    I do not trust corporations to preside over these programs. As I stated prior, Corporations are in existence for one reason- make money. Even not for profits focus heavily on revenue generation. When your first and main reason for existence is to drive revenue then you aren’t going to be good at public service.

    On the other hand. the Government’s modus operandi, while slow, bloated and grossly incompetent, is based in public service. New revenue streams aren’t even considered. Taxes, restitution and tolls are the government’s revenue drivers. Same as it ever was (to quote David Byrne).

    So while the government might not be the most efficient and cost effective organization, that shouldn’t be the goal of government. Public service is.

    Corporate schools, hospitals, etc suck out loud. Kaiser Permanente shouldn’t be allowed to call themselves a medical provider. More like a human health factory.
    It is a crazy world, @CoolBrees has me again. I agree.

    The only issue I will push back on is that of police. Police IMO should 100% be local and in no way 'federalized'.

    I think the problem is the bureaucracy of the federal and state governments have become far too powerful and our elected officials have no real threat on being replaced.
     
    I agree with you that police are local. I am sorry I meant that was a group as a whole that cannot sustain without outside assistance.

    I was including prisons, federal task forces etc.

    And I am for term limits for every governmental position -even non elected ones.
     
    I agree with you that police are local. I am sorry I meant that was a group as a whole that cannot sustain without outside assistance.

    I was including prisons, federal task forces etc.

    And I am for term limits for every governmental position -even non elected ones.
    I am either becoming a lefty or you are becoming a righty because we are agreeing more than not lately!

    You had me at term limits and I would LOVE to see where our elected officials have to pass bills that are related to one item and not have all these other bills in a mega bill to try and sneak in. 1 item, one vote...so we can see how these idiots are voting and who is corrupt (they all are).
     
    It’s stories like this. is why I am solidly left. I don’t blame AT&T for this. They are a corporation making money. No more no less. This is what they are in existence to do. Make more money. Who cares about lying about our elections or American values or well-being. Corporations don’t. Only to the extent the law makes them care.

    Zuckerberg isn’t a monster. He’s a CEO of one of the largest corporations in the world. His personal opinion doesn’t matter any more. Only what business decisions to make that will drive revenue. If he doesn’t- say he grew a conscience- they will promptly fire him and replace him with someone that would keep making money through horribly manipulative algorithms. Which I don’t have a problem with in the slightest professionally. Personally it makes my skin crawl. Alas, they are just doing what they do - and the law is more than fine with it. Make money.

    Lying to rednecks and mouth breathers about stolen elections and ivermectin make for clicks. That makes money. End of story. No evil megalomaniac trying to take over the world. Just a person whose job it is to make the stock price go up. Period.

    The facts remain that there are numerous programs that are too big to be handled by an individual or group of individuals (say a town). Things such as highways, airport traffic control, social welfare, police, military, etc.

    I think we all can agree on this- even @Farb :)

    So the questions becomes, who do you trust to own these programs?

    Some say (Right wing) private businesses should be deployed to provide these types of services. Some believe it should be the government (leftists).

    I do not trust corporations to preside over these programs. As I stated prior, Corporations are in existence for one reason- make money. Even not for profits focus heavily on revenue generation. When your first and main reason for existence is to drive revenue then you aren’t going to be good at public service.

    On the other hand. the Government’s modus operandi, while slow, bloated and grossly incompetent, is based in public service. New revenue streams aren’t even considered. Taxes, restitution and tolls are the government’s revenue drivers. Same as it ever was (to quote David Byrne).

    So while the government might not be the most efficient and cost effective organization, that shouldn’t be the goal of government. Public service is.

    Corporate schools, hospitals, etc suck out loud. Kaiser Permanente shouldn’t be allowed to call themselves a medical provider. More like a human health factory.
    Who says government has to be bloated, incompetent, and grossly inefficient in such disgustingly, terrible ways? Your argument would make quite a few liberals I know cringe because its apologizes for terrible service, quality, or effectiveness? Good government isn't always the biggest or the most expansive, its the smartest and doesn't adhere to believing you can solve complex social or political issues by throwing a lot of money at it and solve enough of the problem. I believe in a universal health care, but is it too much to ask liberals to try and pretend its works a lot better when you cut the "crazy shirt out"---sizable but workable budgets, trying to achieve good, high-quality efficiency standards in terms of decent, good UHC facilities with solid doctors,.medical professions and nurses.

    Big government shouldnt be always conflated with good government. By definition, there often two, very different concepts and don't necessarily correlate all the time.
     
    thank you for answering a question no one asked. At least it wasn’t a wall of text no one reads.

    I digress.

    I didn’t say anything about how government has to be. Like at all. That wasn’t even the topic.

    I was discussing with @Farb corporations and how they behave.

    I mean, you quoted me and everything.
     
    thank you for answering a question no one asked. At least it wasn’t a wall of text no one reads.

    I digress.

    I didn’t say anything about how government has to be. Like at all. That wasn’t even the topic.

    I was discussing with @Farb corporations and how they behave.

    I mean, you quoted me and everything.
    Complex issues or topics aren't always easy, "cookie-cutter" answers that fit nice and neatly into one paragraph. I'd rather give you a long answer with a wall of text that touches on a difficult, complicated set of questions than give badly-worded, dumbed-down, uninformative answers that make me seem stupid. Forgive me if I have an aversion to stupid, "dumbed-down" answers or explanations.

    I've told Reb this on here a few months ago, I told dtc the same thing the other day, and now I'm telling you.
     
    Now this is a good post! And yeah, AT&T basically being the main corporate force behind CNN and OAN is effed up. But no surprise as almost all media today exists only to entertain and generate revenue.

    yes, except I am wondering if they are intentionally doing this to just create as much chaos as possible. Play both sides against each other, stir things up, get more people watching their shows to see what the other side is doing, being outraged, keep watching to see what happens next. You see some companies donating to both political sides, makes me wonder about that too.
     
    @Saintman2884 -

    I get why you feel the need to post lengthy diatribes. I am flattered to have to have anything explained to me that was specifically aimed at @RobF and @dtc. Those are some smart, successful people, I appreciate the compliment.

    What I don’t get is in what way your post had anything to do with what mine - that you quoted.
     
    I will be switching to T-mobile after being with AT&T for over 15 years.

    I will not be returning to this thread because I do not want to know what T mobile is funding.
     
    I will be switching to T-mobile after being with AT&T for over 15 years.

    I will not be returning to this thread because I do not want to know what T mobile is funding.

    Tmobile got other problems, they just had a massive data breach :(


    that exposed the personal information of at least 50 million people. That information includes first and last names, birth dates, Social Security numbers, and driver's license information.
     
    Complex issues or topics aren't always easy, "cookie-cutter" answers that fit nice and neatly into one paragraph. I'd rather give you a long answer with a wall of text that touches on a difficult, complicated set of questions than give badly-worded, dumbed-down, uninformative answers that make me seem stupid. Forgive me if I have an aversion to stupid, "dumbed-down" answers or explanations.

    I've told Reb this on here a few months ago, I told dtc the same thing the other day, and now I'm telling you.

    I'm pretty smart and I do tend to ramble so let me suggest you give answers to the questions posed instead of rambling attempts to avoid looking stupid. Nobody here thinks you are so there's no need to fight the impression. Even your rambling walls of text display an impressive breadth of knowledge so my suggestion is to self edit and save some of that superfluous information for next time.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom