90% of media controlled by 6 companies

adam

BANNED
Jul 2, 2020
204
29
730
In 1983, 90% of our media was owned and controlled by 50 different companies – which, at the time, so concerned author Ben Bagdikian that he penned his now classic book, The Media Monopoly. Today, 90% of our news, whether we read, watch or listen to it, is dominated primarily by six media giants which each own an array of media venues, from TV and radio stations to newspapers and magazines to film and production studios.

 
Feb 19, 2020
186
30
630
Personally, I see nothing inherently wrong with the number of news sources if the journalists behave as they used to do...report the news with objectivity and leave opinions out. Opinion is where ideological bias sneaks in...both liberal and conservative. The problem then boils down to the balance between the two. At the moment, the bias seems to be overwhelmingly liberal with conservative voices often shouted down. History has shown us that's a formula for disaster in democracies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carol Cleon

adam

BANNED
Jul 2, 2020
204
29
730
Personally, I see nothing inherently wrong with the number of news sources if the journalists behave as they used to do...report the news with objectivity and leave opinions out. Opinion is where ideological bias sneaks in...both liberal and conservative. The problem then boils down to the balance between the two. At the moment, the bias seems to be overwhelmingly liberal with conservative voices often shouted down. History has shown us that's a formula for disaster in democracies.
This is a very difficult subject to deal with as there is no real transparency and the news agenda is driven for political ends, added to which most people today will not enter into any sort of open discussion on any subject. Everything is political - including sex, color and race, medicine, news and war. People stay quiet or only express their views with those they believe agree with them.

I hope most people know the media does not really report news but makes it or spins it the way that suits the views they represent or are manipulated into accepting. Clearly the media was used to promote the reason for the war in Vietnam - it becomes too political to discuss more recent wars.

The sub text of any conversation goes something like this. You are either with us/me or against us/me and it does not matter if I/we are wrong because I know we are right in our ideology and I cannot conceed on this because it will make me look weak unless I can spin it.

This is a terrible place for anyone to be.

The situation comes down to money power and influence. We all know this - it has always been this way - its just reaching a very cynical level.

There is to a greater or lesser extent an elite which includes tech, pharma military, media, industrial complex etc who want to push their agenda.

Roosevelt made that very clear in his last speech to the nation in the early 1960s

Money buys power and influence - the media/4th estate generates all 3.

Media has been bought out by 6 entities which enter into relationships with politicians and business in return the media spins information or hides it.

More or less the media wont report adversely on business because of advertizing or on the politicians of the parties they support.

In recent times the media failed to report on the misuse of medicial drugs or perhaps more importantly question the relationship between the regulators and big pharma and the use of medicines - this does not sell media advertizing space and causes politicians difficulties. Big pharma are the biggest political lobby group and advertizing spenders.

Big social media and the distribution and information platforms like google have really become part of the 4th Estate - youtube google facebook etc censor or filter content and remove access.

The bloggers of the new 5th Estate are arguably mostly not economically or technologically independent enough to be a viable information alternative

Journalists are subject to control of their content by their employers and cannot really go against the management.

Rather than give a political examples of media blocking or promoting stories we can see how the media was very controlled in its reporting of the Epstein matters. Apart from NPR the main stream media has mostly remained silent about what happened - google searches show little information with the top results being conspiracy sites and NPR being much lower down if at at all depending on how close to the NPR title wirding the search is.

This is seen very clearly in this leaked video about Epstein which shows how the information was blocked for many years


It seems almost certain to be true that the stories on the Weinstein and Epstein matters were suppressed by the media management. If those sort of matters are covered up then it seems even more likely that other bigger things are also hidden and favors exchanged.

There is very little about the Epstein story reported on any of the mainstream media outside NPR



We need a move back to some regulatory control forcing balanced reporting and something additional requiring public interest disclosure of information journalists receive holding management to account if they block it - but neither democrats or republicans seem to want this unless it can be done so as to only effect the other side.

Wikileaks and others have shown the world what is going on. It is unlikely these issues could have been dealt with within the existing system - too much at risk for those in power. Benghazi or the Ukraine - are stories that are not pretty for those politicians being attacked in the media no matter how they are spun.

In most cases any disclosure or balanced reporting legislation will be difficult to enforce but it should act as a break on some of the fake news generated by all sides and also allow for disclosure of matters the public should know about.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Carol Cleon
Feb 19, 2020
186
30
630
Adam. You seem to have concentrated on the Epstein situation, but journalistic biases go in all directions. One partial solution might be to require (strongly suggest) that news outlets name the sources of their various anonymous pronouncements. When the New York Times or the Washington Post or MSNBC says something it is always a faceless comment by an inanimate object. If the editor is the source they should name that person. Same for any reporter. With their names attached they might be less likely to be so assertively strident or biased? Radio Talk show hosts and TV commentators are rarely hidden like newspaper and magazine personnel seem to be.
 

adam

BANNED
Jul 2, 2020
204
29
730
I understand what you are saying however I wanted to show that media management requires a journalist to spin a story or to kill it.

Naming a journalist will make little difference. A journalist is unlikely to admit they did anything wrong or not comply with management instructions otherwise they will be fired. So the spinning just continues

If you watch the Veritas videos it shows how management culture controls the output. This happens in all media FOX or CNN or Facebox or Google etc - left or right they apply the same sort of control strategies.

There are many examples of news being spun or killed by the media but most stories are political so people wont accept anything is being spun or killed if it is being done in the political direction they agree with. Its all about promoting a left or right ideology.

The Epstein story is one of the few that is not political with clear evidence of what happened before and after his death.

The Epstein story was and continues to be killed by all media outlets. The silence is deafening.

Many much lesser scandals with much less evidence (or less serious implications about those with power on the left and right) have exercised the media, courts and politicians for months or years

The NPR links and Veritas video show how multiple journalists, management, lawyers and academic institutions etc were involved. Money in the form of donations to "charities" and entertainment of the rich and famous and influential in media and elsewhere took place.

This is one of the few stories where we can see whats going on without it getting labelled political.

The very fact that there continues to be no meaningful reporting shows a simple clear example of how media management spins or kills a story and continues to do so.

This is not a unique situation its just we dont normally get this level of disclosure (with evidence) and no political label to cloud the issue.

So here we can see what is goes on to some degree or other without needing to get political.
 
Feb 19, 2020
186
30
630
" Its all about promoting a left or right ideology."

Yes Adam... and that's the problem for most of the things in life that are important. A plausible and workable solution to ideological bias is not evident...nor on the horizon. The left-wing media and the ideological politicians they emulate and influence are currently in 'global' control. And it seems to be getting worse. But that, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. A liberal might love it. A conservative will likely hate it. Your example of a non-political neutral or objective example is just that...one example. One might conclude that "we" must just live with it and adapt to it. But that precludes re-education needed to understand it. That kind of hisiory has been lost in the swamp of revisionist history and political correctness promoted by the liberal left's ideology. They own the media as you have pointed out. The names of the owners, the CEOs, are not always evident. But when they are it speaks volumes.
 

adam

BANNED
Jul 2, 2020
204
29
730
The first thing is to get people to admit there is a problem

Next set in place a media/information distribution investigation agency which must disclose all documents after they investigate each specific failing or news story etc
(A non corporate body covering all media/info distribution)
No statute of limitations

No power to sanction except to force cooperation with any investigation and sanctions when failure occurs

The agency would have an obligation to report everything to the public in any investigation report including all files data etc

The other solutions are reasonably simple -

legally break up the pseudo monopolies in news media and information transmission services like Google

re-introduce a legal requirement for balanced reporting by the media and extend it to the balanced distribution of information by the Google, Facebook etc

apply a legal requirement for public interest disclosure reporting and hold management and journalists individually liable for blocking any stories which meet these criteria with suitable supporting evidence

Alphabet Inc. Google should be broken up into the company operating units -
Same for Facebook

No shared management of media operating companies

Holding companies should have a legal limit to the share of the market that their total news media or info distribution can have

legal obligation for holding companies not to exercise control over news media content - individual liability for breaking these controls

Break up of local and national media/station ownerships.

Cannot own both national and local media. Information distribution services cannot own news media

Thats a starting point - it needs to be refined.
 
Feb 19, 2020
186
30
630
"The first thing is to get people to admit there is a problem."

It is doubtful that any of the liberal media or the social media will admit that there is a problem worth setting up a new bureaucratic investigative watchdog agency... with its own biases. How will it be decided who will run it? Each of us has our own biases. A product of our education. That's where the problems begin and have evolved over time. A free press with freedom of speech evolving along with us. A slow drift to the left moving faster with the lure of something for nothing increasing?

Nikita K and Norman Thomas, socialism.png
 

adam

BANNED
Jul 2, 2020
204
29
730
I think its better to avoid politics the system should protect both left and right of politics by having total disclosure after the event of all communications and data

The agency should have a legal requirement to look into any complaint of the failure of the press to report a public interest story when they have been given the information

The mandate of the agency should be public interest disclosure of all data in a non political manner and an absolute freedom of information disclosure requirement of everything found and internal communications and files

The obligation to disclose to the public whatever is found and the internal process is the main way this can be effective

There should be 2 or more categories of data to be released

1. rumors not supported with data or testimony etc

2. supported data and testimony

The agency management should be a board made up of state lawyers/judges, local media journalists and ex congressmen or ex senators political affiliations declared and an equal weighting of 50% independents and the rest equally from each of other main parties represented in congress.

No complaint can be blocked if there is data or if it is of high public interest even without data. Fast tracking of important issues.

Management has a maximum term of 4 years and only 1 term in their lifetime

Management will have an individual liability to ensure all information is released regardless of whether any conclusion is reached or not

Agency full time staff also have an individual liablity to ensure all data is released

An absolute requirement to disclose any party who blocks disclosure and then a requirement to apply to the courts to have the data released and the blockers punished

The aim is to get the data into the public domain in an organized way so it cannot be hidden.
 
Feb 19, 2020
186
30
630
How will it be decided who will run this new agency..."management"? Sounds like a whole new government bureaucracy, presumably to be paid for by taxpayers.
 

adam

BANNED
Jul 2, 2020
204
29
730
4 persons nominated by each state governor 2 independent 1 from each political party affiliation or 4 independents 2 acting in place of each political affiliation candidate

Selection of management from all nominations by lottery for 25 places every 2 years each to run for a single life time term of 4 years.

Agency paid for from a tax on the profits of the companies or entities it has power to monitor. A % contribution based on profits made by an entity as a % of all profits made by all entities monitored.
 

adam

BANNED
Jul 2, 2020
204
29
730
Its a starting point. Something simpler would be good.
Something fundamental needs to change

 
Aug 12, 2020
3
0
10
Making laws that hold journalist responsible for what they say makes the owners liable for slander , thus keeping stories above board ,also allowing FOX NEWS to tell the population using the president that covid 19 is a hoax resulting in the killing of thousands makes them liable. Why there isnt a case action suit is beyond me. we had great journalism in the 60s 70s 80s and 90s the press balances our Democracy ,those destroying the press are felons
 
Aug 12, 2020
3
0
10
prapaganda never has a star or personality whos famous its always the misinformation that counts. the jews playing tennis in the concentration camps, each false snipet of information never has a single media name except on FOX NEWS they scream fire in the theater and thousands die and they do it again tomorrow because the president is working for the russians .Never in our history has a president violated the constitution so many times .I wonder how many russians are coming over the borders?
 
Aug 12, 2020
3
0
10
thank god for the November elections ,I wonder how many trump will watch die from August 12th 2020 to November 3rd 2020 now that's just that's just two months two weeks and three days .however the republicans are the ones who knew he was unable to read resumes ,they assigned him typists to tweet for him because he cant understand four syillible words he cant use a teleprompter, he cant read the written word ."A Pandemic "trump thought it was a new musical band .Plasma what's that he asked? Tests a word he knows to well for if the truth be told trumps IQ is just above the Idiot range yet below the public school range . whenever young trump heard the word test it was time to move to another school. So he avoids the word test ,the one thing that could have stopped the pandemic ,testing ,I must admit I also never believed that a president who couldnt do his job would actually kill thousands with lack of comprehension ,But here it is for all to realize a president of the United States needs to have a large IQ and a written resume written in front of the public before hes in the white house ,because greed has infested the republicans ,they would put a wooden puppet into the white house. my family lives to serve .But not blindly
 

adam

BANNED
Jul 2, 2020
204
29
730
For now we are stuck with stories that Trump or Biden lack intelligence or IQ etc. Funny both sides say the same thing about the other.

This control of the media question continues regardless of who wins or what subject is being reported

Those who criticise CNN make the same sort of complaints as those who criticise FOX but fail to acknowledge that all the media has decided to by pass integrity in the way they operate and report, and just follow the same broken ratings model

This is not about subject its about a lack of real journalism and real content by all the media left, right and center

If aliens were confirmed to be living on the moon and CNN and FOX were each granted interviews heres how I think it would go if they both asked the same question

CNN/FOX please tell us your views on how Presid Trump has handled Covid-19 and what you think of Joe Biden

If the aliens said we dont wish to comment - it would be reported by

CNN as an alien endorsement of Joe Biden as the aliens would not praise Trumps Covid-19 actions and had nothing negative to say about Joe Biden

FOX as an alien endorsement of Trump because the aliens dont have any criticism of Trumps handling of Covid-19 and had nothing positive to say about Joe Biden

No one and certainly not the media or the universities seem to wish to address why the media is behaving as they are or consider the media problem is fundamental as its the main way the majority of what we hear about is shaped (they just blame political bias of the other side as fake news and look no further).

I agree with Ariana Pekary - the fundamental problem is the way the media operates regardless of whether its FOX or CNN

"The model blocks diversity of thought and content because the networks have incentive to amplify fringe voices and events, at the expense of others… all because it pumps up the ratings."

'Due to the simple structure of the industry – the desire to charge more money for commercials, as well as the ratings bonuses that top-tier decision-makers earn – they always relapse into their old profitable programming habits,' she said.

"it’s practically baked in to the editorial process – and those decisions affect news content every day. Likewise, it’s taboo to discuss how the ratings scheme distorts content, or it’s simply taken for granted, because everyone in the commercial broadcast news industry is doing the exact same thing."

"But behind closed doors, industry leaders will admit the damage that’s being done."

“We are a cancer and there is no cure,” a successful and insightful TV veteran said to me. “But if you could find a cure, it would change the world.”

"As it is, this cancer stokes national division, even in the middle of a civil rights crisis. The model blocks diversity of thought and content because the networks have incentive to amplify fringe voices and events, at the expense of others… all because it pumps up the ratings."

"This cancer risks human lives, even in the middle of a pandemic. The primary focus quickly became what Donald Trump was doing (poorly) to address the crisis, rather than the science itself. As new details have become available about antibodies, a vaccine, or how COVID actually spreads, producers still want to focus on the politics. Important facts or studies get buried."
 
Last edited:
I watched a video a couple weeks ago of a Bill Boggs morning show from 1978, the first segment about 'test tube babies', the other about journalist integrity and going to jail for not revealing sources. Everyone spoke eloquently yet in their own manner. This has disappeared at all levels due to Popcul. EVERYone constitutes a civilian with no internal authority.

Solution you say? I have come.

[post 19]
 
Nov 27, 2019
51
10
555
This is a very difficult subject to deal with as there is no real transparency and the news agenda is driven for political ends, added to which most people today will not enter into any sort of open discussion on any subject. Everything is political - including sex, color and race, medicine, news and war. People stay quiet or only express their views with those they believe agree with them.

I hope most people know the media does not really report news but makes it or spins it the way that suits the views they represent or are manipulated into accepting. Clearly the media was used to promote the reason for the war in Vietnam - it becomes too political to discuss more recent wars.

The sub text of any conversation goes something like this. You are either with us/me or against us/me and it does not matter if I/we are wrong because I know we are right in our ideology and I cannot conceed on this because it will make me look weak unless I can spin it.

This is a terrible place for anyone to be.

The situation comes down to money power and influence. We all know this - it has always been this way - its just reaching a very cynical level.

There is to a greater or lesser extent an elite which includes tech, pharma military, media, industrial complex etc who want to push their agenda.

Roosevelt made that very clear in his last speech to the nation in the early 1960s

Money buys power and influence - the media/4th estate generates all 3.

Media has been bought out by 6 entities which enter into relationships with politicians and business in return the media spins information or hides it.

More or less the media wont report adversely on business because of advertizing or on the politicians of the parties they support.

In recent times the media failed to report on the misuse of medicial drugs or perhaps more importantly question the relationship between the regulators and big pharma and the use of medicines - this does not sell media advertizing space and causes politicians difficulties. Big pharma are the biggest political lobby group and advertizing spenders.

Big social media and the distribution and information platforms like google have really become part of the 4th Estate - youtube google facebook etc censor or filter content and remove access.

The bloggers of the new 5th Estate are arguably mostly not economically or technologically independent enough to be a viable information alternative

Journalists are subject to control of their content by their employers and cannot really go against the management.

Rather than give a political examples of media blocking or promoting stories we can see how the media was very controlled in its reporting of the Epstein matters. Apart from NPR the main stream media has mostly remained silent about what happened - google searches show little information with the top results being conspiracy sites and NPR being much lower down if at at all depending on how close to the NPR title wirding the search is.

This is seen very clearly in this leaked video about Epstein which shows how the information was blocked for many years


It seems almost certain to be true that the stories on the Weinstein and Epstein matters were suppressed by the media management. If those sort of matters are covered up then it seems even more likely that other bigger things are also hidden and favors exchanged.

There is very little about the Epstein story reported on any of the mainstream media outside NPR



We need a move back to some regulatory control forcing balanced reporting and something additional requiring public interest disclosure of information journalists receive holding management to account if they block it - but neither democrats or republicans seem to want this unless it can be done so as to only effect the other side.

Wikileaks and others have shown the world what is going on. It is unlikely these issues could have been dealt with within the existing system - too much at risk for those in power. Benghazi or the Ukraine - are stories that are not pretty for those politicians being attacked in the media no matter how they are spun.

In most cases any disclosure or balanced reporting legislation will be difficult to enforce but it should act as a break on some of the fake news generated by all sides and also allow for disclosure of matters the public should know about.

I don’t care for funneled news. I want to hear the facts and I will make my own opinions. I hate how the news today is trying to lead everyone by the nose.
 

adam

BANNED
Jul 2, 2020
204
29
730
I don’t care for funneled news. I want to hear the facts and I will make my own opinions. I hate how the news today is trying to lead everyone by the nose.

Funneled news seems to be all around

Remember as the poem says after they have removed your enemies and those you dont care about then they will come for you.


Protecting others human rights is good for all, and good for our individual being and soul.

The media story about the postal worker making an affidavit about postal ballots being backdated then recanting it - is strange

All the links to the various USPS worker interviews are at the end of this post

I dont know whats true or even if it is would it make any difference to the election result.

However the USPS worker says on video he did not recant his affidavit - but the media does not seem to be very interested in hearing anything but its own narrative - CNN or FOX or silence

The media strategy is echo chamber or silence

Why doesnt the media interview the USPS worker about his 2 hour recording of him going over his affidavit with the USPS Inspector Officers ?

I do not believe either Trump or Biden are good guys or good leaders. They both seem deeply flawed people who are looking out for themselves

I think some good answers about the media today are given by Glenn Greenwald in his resignation letter from the 'free' press group he co-founded in 2013

Why is Glenn Greenwald so important because

1. he stands for all of us regardless of our sex, race or political beliefs

2. he shows no favor to left or right and

3. has a long history of NOT being friend of the establishment.

Listen to Glenn Greenwald when he says

"The same trends of repression, censorship and ideological homogeneity plaguing the national press generally have engulfed the media outlet I co-founded, culminating in censorship of my own articles. " Glenn Greenwald

This organization he set up agreed not to edit his work unless there was a legal issue.

Greenwald has never had any of his work retracted in 15 years but now they say he needs to be edited even though nothing he says is untrue or false.

"The Intercept is attempting to censor my articles in violation of both my contract and fundamental principles of editorial freedom.

The latest and perhaps most egregious example is an opinion column I wrote this week which, five days before the presidential election, is critical of Joe Biden, the candidate who happens to be vigorously supported by all of the Intercept editors in New York who are imposing the censorship and refusing to publish the article unless I agree to remove all of the sections critical of the candidate they want to win.

All of that violates the right in my contract with FLM to publish articles without editorial interference except in very narrow circumstances that plainly do not apply here."

"I have to note what I find to be the incredible irony that The Intercept -- which has published more articles than I can count that contain factually dubious claims if not outright falsehoods ................. -- is now telling me, someone who has never had an article retracted or even seriously corrected in 15 years, that my journalism doesn't meet the editorial requirements to be published at the Intercept."



"[T]he brute censorship this week of my article — about ......... conduct regarding Ukraine and China, as well my critique of the media’s rank-closing attempt, in a deeply unholy union with Silicon Valley and the ‘intelligence community,’ to suppress its revelations — eroded the last justification I could cling to for staying.”

Greenwald as a prize winning journalist has been under attack by the security establishment in the USA, UK etc for many years and has also been badly threatened by right wing politicians and police in Brazil

He is no friend of the right wing or of Trump - they seem fundamentally political enemies nor does he now find a home with many on the left who used to praise him for his honesty and integrity

If the media censors Edward Snowden whistle-blower journalist GLENN GREENWALD and he resigns from the free press group he co-founded you know things have gone beyond the point that we can PRETEND we are NOT being totally manipulated

I respect all he says in his recent posts - he comes at it like a constitutional lawyer protecting everyones rights - and while it should make no difference, I am not gay but, I am for everyone doing their best and living in peace when possible which Greenwald seems to do.

Lets change the future - and learn about things in the USA and abroad from the free press not the foreign or local propaganda.


Who is Glenn Greenwald

Greenwald is an American, 53, lives in Brazil with his husband David Miranda, a socialist congressman, and their two children. He helped launch The Intercept in early 2014.

Greenwald posted the censored article and his emails with editors on the SubStack platform, which lets subscribers finance independent journalism.

Once we allow the media to create the news we are all finished.

If we have to consider getting reflective news from Russia's RT propaganda arm we know our media have sold out


Neither Donald Trump or Joe Biden have protected individual rights to hear the truth, defended us against the media or powerful interest groups or looked after human rights in other countries


And what about this post office worker affidavit story ?

It might prove to be unfounded but lets prove it not ignore it.

Surely the media can interview the postal worker and project veritas plus third parties to see whats true ?

How can the media say the affidavit was recanted if the post worker says its not recanted ?

Watch the Anderson Cooper video interview on the link below see the top of the link for the video interview report. Its not serious - its like an echo chamber




Read the RT propaganda - its not much better than CNN but its the other perspective


Listen to Veritas videos and recordings and judge for yourself.

Who is doing the manipulation ?

Listen to the end of the 2 hour interview with the USPS inspectors it seems a clarification that USPS worker believes what he said originally was true not a recant

He never says he saw the actions happening - he says he heard the postmaster discussing what had been done and drew conclusions from that and the various instructions he and others were given

See the interviews below

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=QkNkQ2nDQfc


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ibU5KVFCg4Y


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gKhXBU_IgYo
 
Last edited:

adam

BANNED
Jul 2, 2020
204
29
730
Read the following and decide for yourself

What does The New York Times and a majority of other legacy media have in common with Big Pharma?

Answer: They’re largely owned by BlackRock and the Vanguard Group, the two largest asset management firms in the world.

Why does this matter? It matters for obvious reasons including because drug companies are central to setting the COVID-19 responses — including promoting drugs or discrediting existing alternatives and the mainstream media have been following the same lines as big pharms


Moreover, it turns out these two companies form a secret monopoly that owns just about everything else you can think of too. As reported in the featured video:

“The stock of the world’s largest corporations are owned by the same institutional investors. They all own each other.

This means that ‘competing’ brands, like Coke and Pepsi aren’t really competitors, at all, since their stock is owned by exactly the same investment companies, investment funds, insurance companies, banks and in some cases, governments.
“The smaller investors are owned by larger investors. Those are owned by even bigger investors. The visible top of this pyramid shows only two companies whose names we have often seen …They are Vanguard and BlackRock.


“The power of these two companies is beyond your imagination. Not only do they own a large part of the stocks of nearly all big companies but also the stocks of the investors in those companies.

This gives them a complete monopoly.
“A Bloomberg report states that both these companies in the year 2028, together will have investments in the amount of 20 trillion dollars. That means that they will own almost everything.’”

Who are the Vanguard?
Vanguard is the largest shareholder of BlackRock, as of March 2021. Vanguard itself, on the other hand, has a “unique” corporate structure that makes its ownership more difficult to discern. It’s owned by its various funds, which in turn are owned by the shareholders. Aside from these shareholders, it has no outside investors and is not publicly traded. As reported in the featured video:

“The elite who own Vanguard apparently do not like being in the spotlight but of course they cannot hide from who is willing to dig. Reports from Oxfam and Bloomberg say that 1% of the world, together owns more money than the other 99%. Even worse, Oxfam says that 82% of all earned money in 2017 went to this 1%.
“In other words, these two investment companies, Vanguard and BlackRock hold a monopoly in all industries in the world and they, in turn, are owned by the richest families in the world, some of whom are royalty and who have been very rich since before the Industrial Revolution

While it would take time to sift through all of Vanguard’s funds to identify individual shareholders, and therefore owners of Vanguard, a quick look-see suggests Rothschild Investment Corp. and the Edmond De Rothschild Holding are two such stakeholders. Keep the name Rothschild in your mind as you read on, as it will feature again later.

The video above also identifies the Italian Orsini family, the American Bush family, the British Royal family, the du Pont family, the Morgans, Vanderbilts and Rockefellers, as Vanguard owners.

BlackRock/Vanguard own Big Pharma
According to Simply Wall Street, in February 2020, BlackRock and Vanguard were the two largest shareholders of GlaxoSmithKline, at 7% and 3.5% of shares respectively. At Pfizer, the ownership is reversed, with Vanguard being the top investor and BlackRock the second-largest stockholder.
Top owners of Pfizer Inc.

Keep in mind that stock ownership ratios can change at any time, since companies buy and sell on a regular basis, so don’t get hung up on percentages. The bottom line is that BlackRock and Vanguard, individually and combined, own enough shares at any given time that we can say they easily control both

Big Pharma

and the

centralized legacy media — and then some


 
Feb 19, 2020
186
30
630
Adam...Did you intend to leave out your solution to this "takeover" by BlackRock and Vanguard? Remember, shareholders usually don't invest in companies that are failing. They buy share in those that are likely to do well.
 

adam

BANNED
Jul 2, 2020
204
29
730
It seems more like crony capitalism and not real shareholding / investing / buying.

Without real information no engineering decision can be truly valid, learned from or understood.

The same goes for most other decisions

People need to have the information to decide if it is ok for one group to have control of the economic companies, the politicians and the media via equity voting rights, contributions to the politicians and advertising budgets .

China, the EU and the USA all have these type of information filtering arrangements which are politically enforced, and in todays world censored via IT, tech, academics, media, business and politicians etc regardless of the relative truth or possible alternatives.

Farming subsidies and the failure to apply regulations against big business are an example of economically stopping competition or more productive ways of business happening that would effect vested interests.

If people base purchase or use choices on a truer picture of why we are being guided to make certain choices, we and future generations will be better off mentally, in our relationships, health wise and economically.

There should be open discussion not the manipulated debates we have today and in the past. The alternative is a Watergate type world.




When we view the Semmelweis Reflex in todays context and then add to this the use of the media by all sides wishing to distort or control new or different views or technology, even from challanging views that may be valid, it becomes even more important to remain aware of the Semmelweis Reflex for your own health

There is an inbuilt bias in all professions and cultures for the vast majority to find ways to reject changes (despite adequate evidence) that go against the established beliefs. This has caused many serious problems throughout human history

QUOTE

"Semmelweis reflex is a human behavioral tendency to stick to preexisting beliefs and to reject fresh ideas that contradict them (despite adequate evidence).

We aim to familiarize the readers with the term that not only has a significant historical background but also grave clinical implications.

See post above

 
Feb 19, 2020
186
30
630
Adam...Who is to be relied on for the "real" information you seek? That's the problem with today's instant communication and blog moderators with their own biases often preventing discussion they don't like. Worse than that, preventing others from seeing new information. There is no easy or simple solution. Choose your "experts:" to suit your ideology?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY