this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2024
450 points (95.9% liked)

politics

19102 readers
3341 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The purchase of The Baltimore Sun is further proof that conservative billionaires understand the power of media control. Why don’t their liberal counterparts get it?

You have no doubt seen the incredibly depressing news about the incredibly depressing purchase of The Baltimore Sun by the incredibly depressing David Smith, chairman of Sinclair Broadcast Group, the right-wing media empire best known for gobbling up local television news operations and forcing local anchors to spout toxic Big Brother gibberish like this.

The Sun was once a great newspaper. I remember reading, once upon a time, that it had sprung more foreign correspondents into action across the planet than any American newspaper save The New York Times and The Washington Post. It had eight foreign bureaus at one point, all of which were shuttered by the Tribune Company by 2006. But the Sun’s real triumphs came in covering its gritty, organic city. And even well after its glory days, it still won Pulitzers—as recently as 2020, for taking down corrupt Mayor Catherine Pugh, who served a stretch in prison thanks to the paper.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 25 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Being a billionaire,regardless of how you became a billionaire, is unethical and immoral.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

That’s a valid argument to make. The question, however, was “Is Taylor Swift a massive piece of shit?” IMO she is not.

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So the better question is: Does being immoral and unethical, due to being a billionaire, make you a "massive piece of shit"?

Me? No,.I don't think it does. BUT I don't know Taylor Swift personally. She's never invited me over for Mani/Pedi spa days nor do I follow her in entertainment news/gossip so she definitely could be and I wouldn't know.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

I think that is both of the questions just asked together, in a more efficient manner. technically, I think that is a better question. 

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com -3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

She's also not really a billionaire. She's worth $1.1bil, but I highly doubt that's tied up in physical investments and liquid assets. Her art is popular, and she's in demand, but when her popularity inevitably fades one day, her net worth will also depreciate.

[–] makeshiftreaper@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Um actually, they're only worth that much on paper, it's all assets that they can't...

Shut the fuck up. She could rent Liechtenstein, she owns multiple airplanes, and her dog's closet is bigger than my home. Stop bootlicking. Who gives a shit what her wealth looks like? She has more money than people are even capable of imagining, why does it matter?

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Being rich ≠ being a billionaire. I don't know why you're butthurt over reality, but lying about the facts of the matter is just creating outrage where none reasonably exists. Want to get pissed off because she's richer than most people? Fine. But don't lie just to go off on a "billionaires are unethical" tirade and aim it at someone who isn't one.

Observing the facts is not bootlicking. Sorry that makes you uncomfortable, but grow the fuck up.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

lying about the facts of the matter

You mean like claiming that someone with a net "worth" of over a billion isn't a billionaire, setting arbitrary conditions on accepting reality?

Observing the facts is not bootlicking

Twisting them into a pretzel to deny that a billionaire is a billionaire is awfully close, though.

Sorry that makes you uncomfortable, but grow the fuck up.

You should take your own advice and stop inventing alternative definitions for clearly defined words such as "billionaire", "facts", "reality" and "lying".

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Net worth of an artist ≠ net worth of a real estate mogul. Unlike the real estate mogul, she can't just sell off her voice and personality, the core of her "value." It's not my problem you don't like those facts.

If you want to be mad at her for being wealthy, for flying on private jets or whatever, fine. I'm not her fan. I don't give a fuck. But don't go tilting at windmills over her being a billionaire, when that label is applied artificially.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Net worth of an artist ≠ net worth of a real estate mogul

Whether you're in real estate, the arts or any other business, you don't become a billionaire without stepping on a lot of people and being extremely exploitative.

It's such an absurdly large amount of hoarded treasure, no matter how much you try to play it off as not counting when you sing or whatever nonsense you've convinced yourself of.

she can't just sell off her voice and personality, the core of her "value."

That she can't get rid of a couple of her many sources of income doesn't make her any less of a billionaire

It's not my problem you don't like those facts.

You haven't argued from fact at any point, only your completely baseless opinion that a billionaire who sings isn't really a billionaire.

I don't give a fuck

Could have fooled me!

being a billionaire, when that label is applied artificially.

No, that "label" describes anyone with a net "worth" of a billion or more, regardless of sources of income. That's what the word FACTUALLY means, no matter how little you like that fact.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 0 points 9 months ago

Okay, you sure showed me. Bye.