The French surrendering.......to reason?

[Amianthus]

Ridiculous.  Vanity Fair is owned by Conde Nast, a company that's in the business of publishing magazines.  And I think they just established a web presence very recently by buying Lycos.   Network TV is owned by multimedia conglomerates any one of which could buy and sell Conde Nast in the blink of an eye.

Vanity Fair (the current incarnation) is owned by Condé Nast Publications. And Condé Nast Publications is owned by Advance Publications. Advance Publications owns newspapers, magazines, business journals, a couple cable television networks, some news services, internet providers, etc.

[Michael Tee]

<<Vanity Fair (the current incarnation) is owned by Condé Nast Publications. And Condé Nast Publications is owned by Advance Publications. Advance Publications owns newspapers, magazines, business journals, a couple cable television networks, some news services, internet providers, etc.>>

And that's supposed to make them the equal of Time-Warner or Viacom?  Give me a break.

[Amianthus]

And that's supposed to make them the equal of Time-Warner or Viacom?  Give me a break.

Perhaps you can show me where I said they were the same size as Time-Warner or Viacom?

I said they were owned by a large corporation; $7 Billion+ meets my definition of a large corporation.

[sirs]

And that's supposed to make them the equal of Time-Warner or Viacom?  Give me a break.

Perhaps you can show me where I said they were the same size as Time-Warner or Viacom?

I said they were owned by a large corporation; $7 Billion+ meets my definition of a large corporation.

I think it's called moving the goal posts.  Tee's initial claim debunked, so he needs to move what he meant to say

[Michael Tee]

<<Perhaps you can show me where I said they were the same size as Time-Warner or Viacom?

<<I said they were owned by a large corporation; $7 Billion+ meets my definition of a large corporation.>>

Well, thanks for helping me clarify and focus my argument. 

Apparently, there are large corporations and there are large corporations.  Not all "large corporations" are on the same level.  What I should have made clear when I first raised the point that there are some media corporations large enough to be embedded within and a function of the ruling class.  That is to say their interlocking directorates and financial interests are such that they and/or the interests they represent are players in the very events they are "observing."  Their commentary or lack of commentary is not objective any more, but partisan and interested.  And then there are the lower-tier "large corporations" with what any of us would consider major bucks, but nevertheless (a) dwarfed by the Viacoms and Time-Warners of the world and (b) not "players" in the events they report.  Minor players or bit-part players sometimes, maybe, wannabe players, sure, but not players.

My mistake was to use the term "large corporation" without further qualifiers, and assume that all "large corporations" would necessarily be in the same relative size and the same role of player.  I wasn't thinking it through.

[Amianthus]

Apparently, there are large corporations and there are large corporations.

Advance Publications: $7+ billion

Viacom: $9+ billion.

So, where in that $2 billion do they change from "large corporation" into "embedded within and a function of the ruling class"?

[sirs]

Advance Publications: $7+ billion
Viacom: $9+ billion.

So, where in that $2 billion do they change from "large corporation" into "embedded within and a function of the ruling class"?

It's the point where one large corporation has one of its magazines write a report that favors his POV, and is obviously the gospel truth, while all the rest of the large corporations, with all their magazines and newspapers, are obviously in cahoots with BushCo.  That extra $2 Billion does buy alot of copy paper and white out, ya know.  In fact, they probably invest and apply it to carbon paper offsets     

[Michael Tee]

<<Advance Publications: $7+ billion

<<Viacom: $9+ billion.>>

Interesting, particularly since Advance Publications is a privately held corporation.  Basically, it's owned by the two Newhouse brothers, whose late father built the whole thing single-handedly.  What does "$7+ billion" represent exactly and what is the source of this information?

I suppose you're aware that the market cap of Time-Warner before the AOL merger was $84 billion (Wikipedia) which rose to $280 billion with the merger (Wikipedia again.)  $81.01 billion is where Yahoo Finance currently places the market cap.  Time-Warner is not in the same league as Advance Publications and it's ridiculous to claim that they are.

Viacom's market cap is $29.11 billion (Yahoo Finance) not exactly in the Time-Warner league but still about triple your unsourced Advance Publications figure.  It's almost as absurd to claim that Advance Publications is in the same league as it is to claim that it's in the same league as Time-Warner. 

[Amianthus]

What does "$7+ billion" represent exactly and what is the source of this information?

Yahoo Finance, Annual Revenue for 2005. Ditto for Viacom.

[Michael Tee]

<<Yahoo Finance, Annual Revenue for 2005. Ditto for Viacom.>>

Ludicrous to measure the relative worth of two corporations by their respective annual incomes for a single year.  Even more so when one of the two corporations is privately held and not subject to the same auditing, reporting and oversight requirements as the others.  As you probably know already.

[Michael Tee]

<<I think it's called moving the goal posts.  Tee's initial claim debunked, so he needs to move what he meant to say>>

sirs, if you're not going to participate meaningfully in the debate, at least wait till the smoke clears and you know who won before you start  your little victory dance.

[Amianthus]

Ludicrous to measure the relative worth of two corporations by their respective annual incomes for a single year.  Even more so when one of the two corporations is privately held and not subject to the same auditing, reporting and oversight requirements as the others.  As you probably know already.

Ludicrous to measure the relative worth by assets, since a company that has been in business longer would always have a higher net worth.

Besides, if the privately held company is hiding some of their income, then that would just make them closer in revenue to Viacom, wouldn't it?

Annual revenue is a fairly standard way of measuring company size, and it's a required report for tax purposes.

[Michael Tee]

<<Ludicrous to measure the relative worth by assets, since a company that has been in business longer would always have a higher net worth.>>

Totally asinine comment.  Obviously initial capitalization would have a lot to do with the corporate assets and they don't all start with the same capital.  Market cap is a good way of gauging relative worth, since the market is supposed to possess an all-seeing wisdom that technocrats and bureaucrats lack.  Market cap factors in assets AND earnings and all other relevant factors.  Who are we mortals to quarrel with the wisdom of the free market?

<<Besides, if the privately held company is hiding some of their income, then that would just make them closer in revenue to Viacom, wouldn't it?>>

Unless they were inflating it to make them a more attractive take-over object.  That's the problem with privately-held corporations, Ami - - they're PRIVATE.  They don't have to tell you what's going on and they do what's good for them, from their POV, right or wrong.

<<Annual revenue is a fairly standard way of measuring company size. . . >>

It has its uses.  Only a complete idiot would take one single year's income as any kind of indicator.

<< . . . and it's a required report for tax purposes.>>

Yeah.  That's because it's an INCOME tax, remember?  Try calculating income without knowing the revenues.  Just as a learning experience.

[Amianthus]

Market cap is a good way of gauging relative worth, since the market is supposed to possess an all-seeing wisdom that technocrats and bureaucrats lack.  Market cap factors in assets AND earnings and all other relevant factors.  Who are we mortals to quarrel with the wisdom of the free market?

Market cap is a calculation of the worth of outstanding shares of stock. Pretty useless figure on privately owned corporations.

Or, I guess you think all privately owned corporations are worth $0?

Market capitalization, or market cap, is a measurement of corporate or economic size equal to the stock price times the number of shares outstanding of a public company.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_capitalization

[Amianthus]

Yeah.  That's because it's an INCOME tax, remember?  Try calculating income without knowing the revenues.  Just as a learning experience.

Yeah, but then again, I wasn't the one concerned with "one of the two corporations [being] privately held and not subject to the same auditing, reporting and oversight requirements as the others."

Last time I checked, reporting revenues was something that all corporations are required to do (public and private), and it's generally audited in some way and therefore fairly reliable.