Koch brothers and the LA Times

[Prospero]

Last night i had the dubious pleasure of seeing, for the first time in months, an hour or so of Fox news - courtesy of a somewhat conservative friend who likes to wind me up.

it was a reminder of the degredations wrought by the Right on the whole concept of fair and balanced news reporting in the US (we have own own local problems on this score - but also emanating from the baleful influence of Murdoch).

Today the Independent newspaper in London reports of a threat to one of the great US newspapers, the los Angeles Times. It seems the Koch Brothers, major funders of the tea party, are considering buying it and the rest of the papers in its group.

Why does the Los Angeles Times fear the Koch brothers?
The Koch brothers back the Tea Party, oppose the green movement – and may soon have a new paper to promote their views
TIM WALKER

At a recent gathering of the staff of the Los Angeles Times, journalists were invited to participate in a straw poll regarding the paper’s future ownership.

How many, they were asked, would quit their jobs if Rupert Murdoch were to purchase the Times? According to a report in The Huffington Post, several people raised their hands. And what if, the poll went on, the paper went instead to the Koch brothers: right-wing owners of the controversial manufacturing conglomerate Koch Industries, and the world’s sixth- and seventh-richest men? Around half the hands in the room shot up.

The fourth-largest newspaper in the US is also the largest in the Tribune Company, which includes the Chicago Tribune and The Baltimore Sun, and which recently emerged from a four-year bankruptcy under the ownership of a bank and two hedge funds, which are now in search of a buyer. Murdoch is believed to be interested in buying the Los Angeles Times, though not the other seven titles in the group. The Times staff’s preferred proprietors, meanwhile, would be a proposed alliance of local, Democrat-leaning billionaires, who have offered to run the paper as a non-profit enterprise.

But 77-year-old Charles Koch, and his brother David, 73, with a combined personal worth of almost $70bn (£45bn), may be the only figures with the will and the wherewithal to purchase all the Tribune papers – valued collectively at around $623m. Their only prior media properties have been niche, libertarian publications. In a 30 April article, Los Angeles Times cartoonist David Horsey warned that the Kochs want to use the titles “to create print versions of Fox News”.

Before now, the brothers have advanced their agenda by backing the Tea Party; donating to Republican electoral candidates; and funding research to rebut evidence of climate change. Dr Lawrence Rosenthal, executive director of the Centre for Right-Wing Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, says their potential move into mainstream media should be viewed in the context of President Obama’s recent re-election.

“The right’s existing means of influencing national elections proved inadequate in 2012,” Rosenthal says. “The money that people like the Kochs gave to people like Karl Rove didn’t do the trick. So now they have entered a period of experimentation, and are looking at ways to repackage the Republican Party.” Several major political figures have floated ideas for the GOP’s future, says Rosenthal, “but you also have experimentation from the money people. The Kochs are thinking: ‘What we did in 2012 didn’t work; we have to do something. What if we bought newspapers?’”

The recession and the rise of the internet have caused a major shift in the US regional newspaper market, explains Ken Doctor, media analyst and author of Newsonomics. “The companies that used to buy papers were other newspaper companies,” he says. “But the traditional buyers aren’t buying any more. And because papers are so cheap now, the market is open to people who would never have thought of buying a newspaper previously.”

Some new-style buyers are welcome: in 2011 billionaire investor Warren Buffett bought his home town’s struggling Omaha World-Herald – a deal seen as uncharacteristically sentimental. But other non-traditional newspaper buyers have been less popular: also in 2011, developer and hotelier Doug Manchester acquired The San Diego U-T with the explicit intention of making it a platform for his business interests, conservative views and preferred political candidates.

The Kochs’ politics would appear to be at odds with those of The Los Angeles Times newsroom, not to mention readers in all of the broadly Democrat cities served by the Tribune titles, though Reuters media columnist Jack Shafer says the brothers’ views have been somewhat misrepresented.

“The Kochs are strongly libertarian,” Shafer explains. “They’re extremely fiscally conservative, they want a much smaller government and they’re anti-regulation. But they’re also socially liberal. They’re for gay rights. If you pushed them on drugs, I suspect they would be for, if not legalisation, then liberalisation. [California liberals] would find many areas of common ground with them. ”

Resistance to the Kochs’ mooted purchase has reached City Hall, where last week three Los Angeles City Council members signed a motion to withdraw the city’s pension funds from the firms that presently own the paper if they choose to sell to buyers who don’t support “objective journalism”. Councilman Bill Rosendahl, who introduced the motion, told the LA Times: “Frankly, what I hear about the Koch brothers, if it’s true, it’s the end of journalism.”

Profile: The Koch brothers

David Koch

David runs the chemical equipment side of Koch Industries and boasts a $34bn fortune, according to Forbes. David is the more politically active of the two brothers, and was a major funder for the 2012 Republican presidential campaign.

He is 6ft 5in, married with three children, and a basketball fan. He is also a high-profile philanthropist, having donated $15m to build the David H Koch Hall of Human Origins at the National Museum of Natural History and $100m for the David H Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research at MIT.

Charles Koch

Older brother Charles is also said to be worth $34bn, having built his fortune around refining and chemicals.

Described by Forbes as “a diehard libertarian”, Charles is also a notable philanthropist, co-founder of the Washington-based libertarian think-tank Cato Institute, and author of The Science of Success, published in 2007. He is married with two children.

[buttslinger]

I really haven't tuned into Fox News since the election, sometimes I get the radio version in the car, they're pretty much just maintaining the party line, I think, hard to tell since Knees has vacated the premesis. Seems like there's not many orders from Berlin, even old Mitt has packed his bags and gone home.

There are TV ads for Cuccinelli for Governor, his lovely conservative looking wife comes on and says how sweet he is, and how he's really gone after perverts and illegals in our state. Otherwise, it seems like the Republicans are a bit lost, officially, now.

Look for Karl Rove to come out of his hole for the 2014 elections, that should signal Spring for the BSRNC.

[Prospero]

Re-trenching i think. This is a longer piece from the Huffington pos exploring the wider impact of a Koch takeover of the LA Times and other papers in the group.

If Koch Brothers Buy LA Times, Half of Staff May Quit (

At a Los Angeles Times in-house awards ceremony a week ago, columnist Steve Lopez addressed the elephant in the room.

Speaking to the entire staff, he said, "Raise your hand if you would quit if the paper was bought by Austin Beutner's group." No one raised their hands.

"Raise you hand if you would quit if the paper was bought by Rupert Murdoch." A few people raised their hands.

Facing the elephant trunk-on, "Raise your hand if you would quit if the paper was bought by the Koch brothers." About half the staff raised their hands.

UPDATE: LA City Councilman Bill Rosendahl introduced a motion Tuesday to pull city pension money from the investment firms that own the LA Times if they sell the publication to buyers who do not support "professional and objective journalism."
The motion was also signed by Councilman Dennis Zine and Councilman and LA mayoral candidate Eric Garcetti. It will get its first hearing in coming weeks before the council's Budget and Finance Committee.


Recent owner of the LA Times, Sam Zell, has been painted as the devil incarnate for slashing the editorial staff and for his vulgar demeanor.

But at least, editorially, he's stayed out of the reporters' business. There hasn't been propaganda reporting, and there aren't topics that are off-limits to the staff, according to a few Times reporters. The editorial page, definitely leaning left but not afraid, for example, to chastise unions, hasn't changed much since Zell bought the Tribune Co., owner of the newspaper and eight others, in 2007.

That may not be the case under the paper's future leadership, even if the group favored by the staff and readers takes over.

As Tribune Co. emerges from a four-year bankruptcy, the predominantly Democratic city is quivering at the rumor that libertarian billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch may be interested in buying the LA Times. The brothers are believed to be the only group prepared to buy all eight Tribune papers, including the Chicago Tribune, Baltimore Sun, Orlando Sentinel and Hartford Courant, as a package -- how Tribune would like to sell them.

The ownership that most Angelenos seem to favor is a coalition of LA billionaires who have expressed interest in running the paper as a nonprofit, led by former Democratic mayoral candidate Austin Beutner and including prominent Democratic donor Eli Broad.

Many say local ownership is preferable because there's more accountability and involvement. Local owners know and care about the city. Because they live here, they're concerned and accessible. They won't tarnish the paper, because they have local reputations to uphold. It would restore the family feel that the paper had for more than 60 years under the founding leadership of the Chandler family.

However, local ownership can have a dark side. Until the 1960s, the Chandlers used the Times to promote real estate development and Republican ideals. Similarly, when local real estate investor Doug Manchester bought the San Diego Union Tribune in 2011, he turned it into a platform for local business interests. To the dread of most Angelenos, Manchester has expressed interest in buying the LA Times, though he's not considered a frontrunner.

Beutner and Broad have friends, political interests, and business and philanthropic investments across the city. And it's hard to imagine that this wouldn't influence the paper's editorial content.

For example: If Broad was an owner, would he have let the Times run its expose targeting then-Getty CEO Barry Munitz for abusing his expense account? The piece reported the two of them taking international vacations together, at least one on Broad's yacht. The story led to Munitz's resignation.

Perhaps Broad would have let the story run for the sake of the reputation of the paper. Maybe he would have deferred to other friends-of-Eli who wanted Munitz out. Then again, Broad, LA's most generous philanthropist, is a notorious meddler who isn't afraid to piss people off to get his way.

As major players in the city, the names Beutner and Broad regularly appear in the paper. Even if the owners don't interfere, their presence would be in the consciousness of the newsroom. Would reporters, editors and the publisher have the guts to report and run a negative story involving one of their owners? Doubtful.

The fact that Beutner's group would be an oligarchy rather than a monarchy may provide some checks and balances -- even thought Beutner and Broad both tilt left, politically. Their only hope so far of becoming a bipartisan group is Andrew Cherng, founder of the Panda Express and the only Republican reportedly interested in joining the group.

Perhaps one brave Times reporter would go public with a story killed by the new owners. She would lose her job, and it would be written about in The New York Times. And, it would pressure the LA Times owners to be more objective. But many of the people working at the Times support a family or are still developing their careers and can't afford to lose their jobs -- especially in a town with few job opportunities for newspaper journalists.

If half the staff quit under Koch ownership, that would leave half as many people likely to stand up to the owners -- probably the half that would be more likely to do so. Not to mention, it would be a tremendous loss of talented journalists who have built a wealth of LA knowledge and relationships over years of experience.

It is likely that the Beutner coalition sees an LA Times purchase not just as a business investment, but as a local vanity project and perhaps an occasional outlet for their own interests. That's generally how it goes with newspaper owners.

That may not be wonderful, but it's far better that than what the Koch brothers would likely turn the Times into -- namely, a national bullhorn for conservative causes like lowering taxes and lessening regulation. At a conservative conference in Aspen, Colo., three years ago, the brothers said their 10-year political plan includes using the media to advocate for smaller government.

Whichever owner wins out, change is coming, and LA readers and journalists need to be paying attention. The LA Times largely decides what is LA news. The opening segment of LA's public radio programs, such as AirTalk and Which Way, LA, is generally a story on page one of the Times that day. All LA news outlets follow and cover at least some of what the Times reports.

So if the agenda at the Times changes, the agenda at the other LA news outlets will change -- unless those news outlets are watching carefully. LA has to worry more about the stories that the Times stops covering than stories that are covered with a bias.

An example of how bias can take the form of lack of coverage is Fox News' scant coverage of the national gun control debate. When President Barack Obama gave his moving speech chastising Congress for failing to pass background checks, Fox cut away to a panel discussion on the liberal media bias before the president had even finished his first sentence.

It seems the rationale is that the more silence there is on gun control, the greater the likelihood that status quo will continue. So the silence is what we have to listen for.

All LA journalists, including those at the Times, will need to research the friends and interests of the paper's new owners and make sure they don't get special treatment. If Times reporters hit a wall, will other LA journalists step up to report on those topics?

That must include pre-emptive, entrepreneurial stories, not just reactive stories. It must mean digging for what's broken but ignored, what's going on behind the press releases and City Council or County Supervisors' meetings. It must mean holding politicians accountable for what they said six months ago.

It means following up once the excitement has died down. For example, with the cop-killer Chris Dorner, LA had a few days of a Batman-like adventure story. It's the kind of stuff a lot of journalists live for. But they have to also live for the follow up. LAPD Chief Charlie Beck promised to openly investigate whether Dorner really was unlawfully fired or not. That was the time for LA journalists to investigate racial discrimination within the LAPD. Just this week, the Times reported that Dorner prompted dozens of fired cops to challenge their firings.

Impactful coverage calls for many reporters putting in many hours of hard work. Unfortunately, LA -- the second-largest city in the U.S. -- is far from overpopulated with working journalists. No LA newsroom is close to even half the size of the Times' 500-person editorial staff, reduced as it is from its peak a decade ago. At HuffPost LA, there are a whopping three of us.

One thing sure to happen if the Koch brothers take over the paper is a conservative agenda on the editorial page. As other newspapers have cut back on editorials and endorsements, the Times is now often the only LA news outlet that issues endorsements on political candidates and on ballot measures and initiatives. This is particularly crucial in California, where even the most educated voter is left clueless and confused -- or worse, tricked -- after reading the state propositions put on the ballot by Californians who simply gathered enough signatures to push a private agenda.

If the Times' editorial page is filled with the Koch brothers' libertarian opinions, other journalists in LA will need to step up and voice opposing views.

In an age when the Internet is buzzing with far-left and far-right screamers blogging opinion as fact, it is invaluable to have trusted, vetted journalists research both sides of key public issues and then publish carefully considered opinions. This is especially true given the "he said, she said" nature of most news, leaving out discernment of truth from the lies that both he and she may have been peddling.

Great content is produced on independent news sites, and the Internet's influence on print media will only continue to grow. But let's be real. Other forms of journalism aren't ready to replace great newspapers.

[buttslinger]

P. T. Barnum Never Did Say
"There's a Sucker Born Every Minute"

It was actually coined by his competitor referring to all the fools who paid to see Barnum's fake giant, instead of his real giant, although it turned out his giant was the fake one.

Anyway, the American system gives the American people every opportunity to fairly decide on policies, The same system that allows the Kock Bro$ and Romney to become wealthy success stories allows the American public to boycott their products and oppose them when it comes to politics. In a way, it makes perfect sense that in a country that prides itself in being the place where anybody can make it, the guys that have made it did so by tilting the playing field against those that would make it if it didn't mean going uphill day after day. Even the drunk winos sleeping on the sidewalk know this. I believe the BIG O has worked 5 times as hard being the voice of the little people than he would have to make lots more money as a successful lawyer. But let's face it, for most of us, it would be much more fun working hard to get rich than burn out helping people that always let you down. Things get done by people willing to put the work in, and most people are all FOR change, until you tell them they have to give up a Saturday to make that change happen. I'm sure the Koch Bros have worked many saturdays. I guess what it boils down to is "The Powers That BE" have a tremendous advantage over the little guy in getting things done. Big Pharma and Big Oil have worked hard getting the dough to buy US Senators, and they're going to work hard to keep what's theirs. My solution? Lie down on the bed til all this angst drifts away....ahhhh. I really don't even like discussing it.