'Ink is going to go away'

Dateline: Tue 04 May 2010

Thanks to reader Nicolas Martin, who sent this story:

Sumner Redstone Says Murdoch’s Newspapers Will Fail
April 27, 2010, 4:56 PM EDT

By Brett Pulley and Andy Fixmer
April 27 (Bloomberg) -- Viacom Inc. Chairman Sumner Redstone, taking aim at media rival Rupert Murdoch, chastised the News Corp. chairman for investing in newspapers and said the “ink” industry will be out of business in two years.

Redstone, who controls New York-based Viacom and CBS Corp., criticized Murdoch for paying $5.5 billion in 2007 to purchase Dow Jones & Co., publisher of The Wall Street Journal. He called News Corp.’s New York Post “a gossip” publication and said there “won’t be any newspapers in two years.”

“You have to be careful of any newspapers that Rupert Murdoch runs,” Redstone said yesterday at the Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills, California. “He’ll put anything in them, except himself.”

Teri Everett, a spokeswoman for News Corp., declined to comment. The New York-based company this week started a local edition of the Wall Street Journal, challenging the New York Times for ads and readers. News Corp. also owns the Twentieth Century Fox film business, Fox TV network and cable channels Fox News and F/X.
Redstone said his media businesses are better positioned for longevity than newspapers owned by Murdoch.

“He lives in ink, and I live in movies and television,” Redstone said. “Ink is going to go away, and movies and television will be here forever, like me.”

Redstone, 86, for the second straight year told an audience at the event that he plans “to live forever,” and that he continues to “eat and drink every antioxidant known to man.” His family holding company, National Amusements Inc., was forced to sell CBS and Viacom stock in October 2008 to satisfy lenders.

CBS Chief Executive Officer Leslie Moonves, speaking in an interview at the event, said advertising “is not back to pre- recession levels, but business is very good.”
Ad sales at CBS’s television network are approaching pre- recession levels, Moonves said, and are recovering faster than local advertising at television stations. Radio advertising has increased for the first time in five years, he said.

Viacom, the owner of Paramount Pictures, MTV and Comedy Central, fell $1.22 to $35.38 at 4 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The shares have gained 86 percent in the past year. CBS lost 47 cents to $15.85 and has almost tripled in the past 12 months.

With assistance from Sarah Rabil in New York. Editors: Anthony Palazzo, James Callan
To contact the reporters on this story: Brett Pulley

Comments

Whitebeard [unverified] said:

This comment has nothing to do with Ruth's article, but.....

Today (May 4) is the 40th anniversary of the Kent State Massacre.

On Michael Moore's website, there have been live interviews with people who are connected in some way with this historic and tragic event.

I just watched A guy from the band Devo telling of how he was in the middle of the craziness that day and watched his friends get shot by the National Guard.

In my opinion, this country is headed in a direction where this could happen again in the near future.

A friend of mine was wounded at Kent State.
I was an anti-war activist then and it easily could have been me as well.

2010-05-04 16:07:53

Tom Greenacres [unverified] said:

Strange old Sumner Redstone, looking more and more like a Pharoah's mummy, seems to be reveling in the continued dumbing down of America. His statement that ink is going away and his movies and TV will be here forever, represents the New Media Mantra that short attention spans can be satisfied by superficial inputs.

2010-05-04 16:30:31

Marycatherine Barton [unverified] said:

I definitely think that Whitebeard is on to something, and as for Redstone's prediction, maybe so, maybe not. If not the dontrolled newspapers, which are way too operation mockingbirdish, I do wish people would read more, not just watch moving pictures.

How about books, such as 1984, publicly presented to Obama by Elizabeth (some call Queen), or BRAVE NEW WORLD, reportedly Hilary Clinton's favorite novel. Oh well, time to listen to "The Alex Jones Show", a daily, on our much loved internet.

2010-05-04 16:34:42

hendy [Member] said:

Redstone has huge media assets. Of course he thinks they're great. He OWNS them. Lobbing something at an idiot like Murdoch is just billionaire fun.

There are some assets that live a long time. Some of them are VASTLY over-protected, too.

Today, we live by something called the "pageview'. That number dictates how much publishers get paid, and also, writers on many sites. I write for some of those sites. One week, I had 190K+ unique hits. Money rained down from heaven. The next month, not so much.

I know people that write blogs for $25/per. Takes them about 10min. The content is as superficial. Or, perhaps you could write for HuffPost, for free. It's a topsy turvy world because we don't reward based on any other dimension than raw pageviews. Something has to change. Murdoch gets a lot of pageviews on his sites. And some of those viewers are as dumb as a box of rocks, or worse. Yet somewhere, there are advertisers that believe in a hazy demographic that says these people might have interest in their product/service, and therefore, the more viewers are the better.

This is what the Internet has become, and advertising-driven medium. It sponsors a great fraction of what you see that you aren't paying for directly via subs, paywalls, and so on.

Disinformation is presented as though it were true, and people have little way of telling truth from fiction because journalists and bloggers have different agendas and values-- as well as the publishers. Veracity is difficult to discern. Reputation and brand management are key for corporations and political operatives, so manipulation is easy and simple. Taxonomy of the truth has become blurred-- especially by Murdoch who sees only income, not quality and a zeal for truth.

Sumner Redstone just likes to crow. At 84, it's likely all he can do.

2010-05-04 19:59:32

Tell The Truth [Member] said:

It may be dumb, but I tend to lump together, a pundit's views with their presentation. Superficial? Perhaps. Let me explain:

I listen to The McLaughlin Group every week on TV. I laugh at the host, because he's a 90-something mumbling old fool, former priest-turned-sage, who deliberately pits Monica Crowley against Elanor Clift for sport. This from a man who was a paid Nixon apologist. Both women could make mincemeat of the host. The distaff views on that show are poles apart but I learn something from them every week--they're sharp, snappy and smart. In short: they present themselve sprofessionally, look the part, and do their research.

Donald Trump is a brilliant user of OPM (Other People's Money) who can turn bankruptcy or hotel forfeiture into billions just by appplying his unique brand to the mix. He looks like a combed-over fool, and he marries plasticized models for sport.

Sumner Redstone is mummified, hair-dyed and over-exposed. His media presence is king-like, strangely enough, because he employs thousands who depend on his kingdom...even though most know the Emporer wears no clothes.

My point is: appearance and comportment count for something. If a TV camera shows up unannounced at your door, and you're just out of the shower, that's one thing.

But Sumner, and The Donald, and McLaughlin, all have mirrors in their homes. They cultivate their personal appearances and their punditry, and THEY think they look just fine. That should tell you all you need to know about their political or busines sviews. They have TVs that play-back their ridiculous punditry and pronouncements. They usually look foolish and too-often sound likewise.

Mom always taught me to wear clean underwear, dress appropriately, comb my hair correctly and to take care with personal appearance. I don't have The Donald's money, but too often, if we look real hard, he doesn't either. Redstone is a clown, complete with dyed red hair.

I can't look at him without giggling. He thinks ink is gone? Ink is a close cousin of hair dye, pal. Petro-based to boot. And you expect us to take your "ink" views, or anything else, seriously?

He needs a Louisiana Gulfcoast shampoo. Of his brain and his hair.

Poof. Be Gone, Sumner. Take the superficial nonsense with you.

2010-05-05 07:32:22

Write Man [Member] said:

Might be worth noting that Washington Post-owned Newsweek is for sale (decline in ad sales/profit on both counts, the Post's and Newsweek's).

My money's on the development of foundation supported non-profit news organizations. Not gonna replace everything that bites the dust, but my sense is that some of the "institutional news hole" will be filled by their likes.

2010-05-05 11:29:14

Seneca [unverified] said:

". . . development of foundation supported non-profit news organizations."

Great. Just what we need. More corporate propaganda disseminated by "non-profits."

Being foundation supported and not for profit are no guarantees of objectivity, "truthiness" or anything else that resembles quality journalism.

2010-05-05 12:07:41

Write Man [Member] said:

And the Star hasn't been spouting conservative propaganda in one form or another for years?

You're correct, no guarantees, but it would seem better to judge the quality of the product after it's produced than before.

No matter who foots the bill, there's going to be propaganda, and at this point, it may be the best alternative...and what's the phrase, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good?

2010-05-05 12:24:56

Tell The Truth [Member] said:

Consumer Reports has done just fine for over 40 years with zero ads--just subscriber revenue and unbiased research. Ditto a few other publications.

I'm not sure if CR is truly a not-for-profit, but it does have a foundation that helps fund research.

2010-05-05 16:28:47

hendy [Member] said:

The 501c(3) and (6) corps get away with propaganda murder. A huge crackdown by the IRS needs to take place, and soon. I'd love to see any number of propaganda mills lose their tax status in a fiery sort of way.

Ok. rant over.

2010-05-05 20:12:12

Tell The Truth [Member] said:

Then, Hendy, the "churches" ?

2010-05-06 05:07:49

hendy [Member] said:

What of the churches? Do they get to preach politics from the pulpit? They do, and aren't supposed to, and get away with it. Seems strange, doesn't it?

What part of public services do churches not use? They don't need police and fire protection, emergency services? They don't use roads? Stop signs? Sewers?

How about ostensible charitable trusts? They transfer wealth, and keep principalities in business. They promote political agendas, keep dukes and marquis de business in moolah for centuries.

The trusts get to set agendas for whole communities. Look at the power that the Lilly Foundation has in this community? Do they have the right? Yeah-- they get to vote with their dollars and keep their recipients as vassels. NFPs and NGOS positively QUAKE, hoping to get Lilly or Simon or other foundation monies. These are royal houses, we're talking about. Make no mistake about this.

2010-05-06 06:48:11

diamontina [unverified] said:

societies president extinctions running issue impact beginning

2010-05-17 02:03:01

diamontina [unverified] said:

societies president http://studentweb.matcmadison.edu http://portland.citysearch.com issue impact http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com

2010-05-17 02:03:51

diamontina [unverified] said:

societies president extinctions running issue impact beginning

2010-05-17 02:04:08

Comments are closed.

Login

or Register

Search

Syndicate Blog