How a Media monopoly is structured well hidden world wide
Who wants to control the opinion of the masses, must control their knowledge. Only information, that is accessible, can influence decisions.
This way, a media monopoly is secured, that “doesn’t even exist”.
Believers are going to argue, that a media monopoly could not exist, because restrictive trade practice acts would hinder such power constructions from doing so. Precisely true, as long as a monopolist wants to control the world market openly and official (for example Microsoft) and their monopoly ambitions are widely known.
Monopoly intentions can be covered up without any problems, or better, structured across different judicial areas in a way that national control agencies cannot see an infringement of the law.
In the extreme case, critical officials within the offices can be replaced through Puppets, also meaning the control offices can be controlled as well as the law making politicians (see above).
The only conditions that are necessary to secure a world wide media monopoly are
- enough capital (and)
- lust for power (power hungry)
Everything else is only a game of strategy, that in principal every Used-Car dealer or Bar-owner dominates, who transfers his wealth over to his wife and in that way is officially not the owner anymore, hence not liable anymore. Nothing new and nothing complicated at all!
Who would like to establish a media monopoly, must only do it similar. Instead of holding participations with media houses under the own name or in the name of a holding company, dummies, trustees, partner, banks, investment-bonds, out of country companies, Donations, Lawyers etc. are through several levels inserted, so that in the end no participation identification is possible anymore or it belongs to a puppet, a dummy that stands in no traceable connection to the Power Figures.
The capital is either made accessible through discrete and most importantly international Investment-Firms on an IPO (Stock returns) (in order to gain plurality) or discretely as a loan or quiet contribution (for example an anonymous Donation from Lichtenstein-SWITZERLAND)
Since autumn 2003, the official control of most media participation in the “civilized nations” of the “international community” is concentrated on just 5 media giants.
Aol Time Warner
Viacom
NBC Universal
Bertelsmann (and)
Murdoch (News Corp.)
The international internet search for “media giants” imparts the current status and informs which concrete firms (film, news, television, radio, internet, music, etc) are controlled by the media giants. And that is (almost) the entire market. Also see to this:
www.cjr.org (I want media)
www.pbs.org (Suchwort Media Giant)
www.freepress.net/ownership
www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtml
(If you take 5 minutes of time you will find interesting *German Articles and dates under the search “mediamonopol”).
So altogether five giants dictate what the masses think and how they are allowed to entertain themselves. Shouldn’t that already make one skeptical? Does it really seem that impossible, that the main shareholders or rather decision makers of these five media giants serve a common goal/ideology or that is to say serve the same Power Figures?
Who even asks the question, who those media giants are controlled by after all? Who wants to really know, if the media houses (also in context) are standing in competition to each other or are rather forced into line?; Surely not only a few. But the critical voices do not sit within the media houses and can as follows not be heard from the masses. The masses are made to believe in competition.
As official “main”-shareholders, hard to see through, international oriented large concerns can few families, banks, foundations, Investment firms, speculators, foreign companies etc. be found (if found at all). Sometimes it also comes to takeover struggles and disputes, though they are always restricted to stocks and never touch information that is regarding to content. The trend is clear: More and more media participation is concentrated onto fewer and fewer media houses.
Is it possible, that the “owners” –if they have a face and are not just Holding companies with no profile- are only (super-rich) front-men that in fact cover up the real Power Figures or are convinced of the goals of the Power Figures and act accordingly, since already financially independent?
The official participation on media concerns and majority holdings is therefore not very meaningful. After all, these can be structured or divided onto several trustees and in this way hide a majority.
If someone for example assumes, that the media giant Bertelsmann GmbH was only a typical German Firm from the harmless provincial Guetersloh, forgets, that the international-investment-house group Bruxelles Lambert is at least an influential shareholder (25%), that holds participations either in its own name—or discretely through the name of a client.
In other words: Who wants to remain anonymous, first buys himself one or multiple smaller banks or investment firms, to then let these hold participations through neutral thirds with the media giants, so the Power Figure doesn’t appear.
Old Rothschild knew this even 150 years ago. After all, he didn’t invest in the USA with his own name, but pushed Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan as “discrete Partners” through. His official representatives then became the bank Warburg and Jacob Schiff as chief of the Investmentbank Kuhn, Loeb & Co … Why would this be any different today? Even today, Sir Evelyn de Rothschild invests (in Great Britain), his brother David de Rothschild (in France) and other family members not under their own name, but also through the discrete Holding Concordia. Concordia controls the Rothschild Continuation Holding. Continuation is the main shareholder of the commonly known Bank NM Rothschild.
It is similar, with Bertelsmann: 57.3% of Bertelsmann is held by the Bertelsmann Foundation. 17.3% belongs to the family Mohn. The voting power lies with 75% within an administrative Foundation and with 25% within Bruxelles Lambert.
Respectable people, through this mean, see only the engaged Israel support from the Bertelsmann Foundation. After all that was the least, a huge German Enterprise owed the holy land… And can this guilt really ever be fully settled? Or is it at all times renewably demandable?
Trustees, front men (dummies), and secret partners
Every interest group that wishes to remain anonymous serves itself with acceptable front makers (front men, trustees, Puppets), to hide own monopoly ambitions and exclude risks. Equipped with the necessary capital, these then become active, officially in the own name and interest, though unofficially in the Power Figures.
* The British media lord Robert Maxwell with birth-name: Ludvik Hoch is a good example. His capital originates from a legendary off-shore money source via anonymous Lichtenstein Foundations. Allegedly, a few years ago the media boss had fell from his yacht and drowned.
* Viacom-Chief and Majority Shareholder Summer Redstone, birth-name Murray Rothstein also guaranteed himself a quick tycoon career. Still member of the US military secret service in World War II, the ex-lawyer soon collected Media-Shares wildly. Today, he is next to Rupert Murdoch one of the “makers” in the media business.
* Very interesting, is the Australian and Satellite-TV-Tycoon Rupert Murdoch, with his News Corp noted on the stock-exchange… Was for example Murdoch’s sudden and steep climb to the top only possible with the financial help of Harry Oppenheimer (Anglo-American’s and DeBeers’ Gold and Diamond Cartel), Edgar Bronfman, Sr. (Seagram Media Group and Chairman of the Jewish World Congress), Armand Hammer and the Rothschild’s, or is solely the program planning of the lowest common denominator of the Masses (BILD) responsible for his success? Completely legit is the Rothschild Investment Trust represented as major shareholder of the News Corp. with an own principal in the committee within the media giant.
And what does Media King Rubert Murdoch think? Independent and politically neutral, as newsman totally to facts obligated? Of course. He speaks with pleasure about “ my faith and News Corporation’s faith in the integrity and worthiness of the Zionist undertaking” (Kissing The Boots Of A Media Goliath by Norman Solomon, Creators Syndicate).
* Conspiracy Theorists also know: Oppenheimer was the Frankfurter Bank where old Rothschild first of all completed training as a banker and until his own founding of a bank acted as a partner. Both banks are still friendly towards each other today, and remain connected with business.
* Most know Edgar Bronfmann as Chairman of the Jewish World Congress.
Also known by many is the business and family connection to the Rothschilds: Bronfmanns first wife, Ann Margret Loeb, is the daughter of the German-Jewish main shareholder of one of the most influential Wall Street Banks (at that time known as Loeb, Roades & Co.). Under the company name Kuhn, Loeb & Co., the Loebs together with the Rothschilds were responsible for the founding of the US central bank, the Federal Reserve. All children and heirs of the Old Bronfman (for example his son and today’s media maker Edgar Jr.) merged from this marriage, that was divorced in 1973.
The official founder and main shareholders of the private US Bank (Federal Reserve, FED) were in 1913 the Rothschild Bank (London, Paris), Lazard Brothers Bank (Paris), Israel Moses Seif Bank (New York) and Goldmann Sachs Bank (New York). Look at “Haende weg von diesem Buch” (Jan van Helsing) and “Banks, Bread and Bombs II” (Stefan Erdmann), both from the www.amadeus-verlag.com.
Other Sources only name the seven bankers Rothschild, Warburg, Rockefeller, Schiff, Harriman, Vanderlip and Morgan. Do not let yourself get confused. Banks merge or change their names, while the Powerful-Families in the discrete background stay the same. Jacob Schiff was for example president of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. and since 1916 also chairman of the “Zionist movement in Russia”.
J.P. Morgan and Rockefeller are and were Rothschild’s trustees in the USA. Their heirs still, to this day, control discretely and neutrally hidden behind the Name of the US mega Banks Chase Manhattan and Citibank- 52.86% of all shares of the New York Federal Reserve FED, which in turn has control of the rest of the 11 FED-Branches in the USA (in 1997 Eric Samuelson), today known as J.P Morgan Chase and Citi Group.
IMPORTANT: The US Federal Bank is not owned by the US Government or Federal State, but by private owners, the above mentioned banks and the people behind them.
This is also not different in other countries as for example, the German Central Bank and Bank of England are in private ownership. When a government is in debt, then it is not in debt with itself but in the norm with the Central/Federal Bank and therefore with the owners of the central bank. And exactly those are paid Billions in interest yearly, by taxes. Who wants to uncover, --business schools and Universities do not know or reveal anything--, is not seldom put into the Anti-Semitic corner. US presidents, that wanted to free America from the Banker control, for example Kennedy, and wanted to deny their credit offers, for example Lincoln, were murdered by “lunatics”.
Bronfman’s brother in law Baron Alain de Gunzburg derived out of a Jewish Banking Family that was ennobled by the Habsburgs in 1830. Baron de Gunzburg is related to the Paris Rothschilds as well as business connected through “his” bank Louis Dreyfus and the Bank of Worms (for example. Club Med.) Since 1976, Gunzburg sat in the committee of Bronfmanns Seagram.
The Bronfmans originally made their vast fortune through a 2-day “Whiskey”-mix (usually 6-12 years), that was smuggled during the prohibition under the name of Jonny Walker (Original Jonnie Walker) and Glen Levitt (Original Glenlivet) from Canada into the USA. Does one believe Peter C. Newmann’s “Bronfman Dynasty (the Rothschilds of the New World)”, ISBN 0-7710-6758-5, 500.000 USD were made monthly this way. Not bad for 1920-1930. These profits were of course only possible due to the restrictive US-Laws (Alcohol-Prohibition), that guaranteed the death of 34.000 Americans who poisoned themselves with low grade smuggler merchandise as well as the 2.500 Gangsters that shot each other to secure market shares, plus the 500 police men, who were killed in the fight against the criminality. One evil person, that wants to see parallels to the “war on drugs” here, or even supposes, that such control laws are enacted by politician-puppets in the mist of the media hysteria to guarantee Insiders a high monopoly-gain.
With the help of cheap financing under the name of the Canadian Liquor Company “Seagram”, that was controlled by the Bronfmans, Media Shares were discretely bought until the “harmless” Liquor company was the second biggest Media-house in the world; the biggest influence is worldwide held by Aol Time Warner, {CNN, Warner Brothers, Time Magazine etc.-see above, in which Seagram was of course also a Main Shareholder}. For Bronfman’s discrete participation was Cemp Investments responsible.
In the mean time, a French Sewage Company was wildly buying media shares world wide (including Universal) under the merry, friendly Firm-name Vivendi Universal. Manager Jean Marie Messier was praised (by the media) as a business-genius. Vivendi stocks exploded in ratings. The high price of the own stock allowed Vivendi Universal the purchase of a big part of Seagram Shares, which the Bronfmans push off in 2000 for mega stock exchange profits.
Since then, -as known-, Vivendi started to decline rapidly. Falling stock rates (and suddenly restrictive banks?) caused a liquidity crisis. After more than 80 percent stock rate fallback, in 2002, Jean Marie Messier was fired and a “Stimulus/Savings Package” organized from major share holder Bronfman with the help of a few banks, which also has the affordable sale of Vivendi Universal (Seagram) Shares of the US media houses in mind. Vivendi Universal (Seagram) (or a successor) should be listed on the stock market, too, in order for US Media Investors to be able to directly get on board.
Bronfman could potentially in this way, secure himself and his friends with help of cheap financing very inexpensively the renewed control of Vivendi Universal (Seagram), which of course included the 2 year previously, expensively sold Seagram Shares. Possible final result after good two years: As before, control of the old Seagram-Media, but now also in control of the Vivendi Universal-Media plus a huge profit. Not bad for just a few phone-calls and Paris vacations.
Finally in 2003, a big portion of Vivendi Universal (Seagram) was bought up by the US media giant NBC, who calls itself NBC Universal and is officially controlled to 80% by the multinational GE General Electric. This shouldn’t hurt the Jewish world Congress too much though, because there is not one other influential Media group since the sale of Ted Turner Media-holding’s (CNN etc.) to Time Warner in the USA in 1996 that is not controlled by puppets or members of the world congress. Who doesn’t want to believe it, research it yourself and name me one.
But the Bronfmans are seemingly not only interested on Media and Alcohol: In 1981 they bought up big portions of the Scientology-Church. The reason: L. Ron Hubbard had achieved great success with the in his Bestseller-“Dianetics” described “Techniques” of freeing oneself of psychological blockades and Manipulation. Successes which could endanger the Alcohol profits and Mass media permanently? Or was one afraid of Insider knowledge that secrets of this “technique” revealed? It was essentially over with for both due to the purchase of the Bronfmans. Hubbard lost Control, numerous members left and Scientology was declared a “dangerous sect” by the media, hence was not a big threat anymore. The dulling of the masses through media manipulation and regular Intoxication by alcohol could continue without disturbance as before.
And what did Lothar de Maizier have to listen to from Edgar Bronfman on his New York visit in 1990? Quote: “There will be a terrible end for the Germans, should the future generations stop the payments to Israel (…). Then, the German race would disappear from the earth.” (“Die Erbschaft Moses” from Joachim Kohln, page 3.” Harold Cecil Robinson, “Verdammter Antisetismus”, S 119). That way, even the dumbest person knows what goals and intentions the Bronfmans are serving.
* Another interesting player in the media business is the Israeli-American Haim Saban that built his media influence (Fox, News Corp. etc.) together with Rupert Murdoch, yet held himself discretely in the background. He made headlines in February 2003 in Germany when he wanted to buy out the bankrupt-ready church media company. After all he bought ProSieben, Sat1, the biggest private broadcaster in Germany. Funnily enough, Saban was portrayed as “Egyptian” in all German newspapers. The “Spiegel” (Nr.7, 2003) knew him as harmless millionaire, who started as a bass-guitar player. Well, if that doesn’t guarantee sympathy….you just have to like one of that kind…
Saban doesn’t like the Germans too much. In the New York Times, he viewed Germany as to “Israeli” (Spiegel Online 06.08.05). But it wasn’t the only reason to cash in nicely. In the summer of 2005, he sold his ProSieben, Sat1, Kabel1 and N24 shares plentifully overpriced to the Springer Verlag. This Deal secured the Power Figures not only a quick 3 billion profit, but also the certainty that a new owner, now “Germanys’ biggest newspaper and TV-Empire”, doesn’t only hop, but even jump as wanted.
=====
We are all curious, should the deal not be authorized by the anti-trust commission, which puppet (or “independent” company) would then officially take over the Saban and Springer shares, so that everything has its legit order.
=====
* The Italian Silvio Berlusconi should also be kept in mind, which small stature in my opinion could be the cause of an extreme inferiority complex and therefore huge Power-lust. Power hunger and vanity are essentials for a perfect puppet…His friendship with Murdoch, the US government and Israel (blind support for the Iraq War, Israel should in his opinion become member of the EU, the EU shouldn’t negotiate with PLO anymore) opens doors. Additionally, the little one controls with his allegedly self-made billion dollar fortune de facto 90% of all Italian media and therefore the Italian Masses. Where did the money for the media overtake really come from? – From the same source as Rupert Murdoch? – Probably not from the often accused of “Mafia-Contacts” His media influence guaranteed him the election of chief in government in Italy, even though many educated Italians are rather embarrassed of him, and the multiple accusations of different business crimes are not very trust building. Yet, not a single has he been convicted.
Much more important than the names of possible partners or puppets, that are replaceable as needed anyhow, is the principle. The above media giants, who apparently always have enough Billions, which’s origin almost nobody (in the media) wants to question and should therefore remain seemingly unknown, buy in the apparent own name entire media houses and media shares.
Relatively independent media houses that do not want to sell, can purposely be brought to liquidation elimination through restrictive financing, to in this way provoke a stock market flotation (and therefore influence for everyone that could secure themselves the stock), a sale (to front-men and Power Figures) or a bankruptcy (and therefore loss of influence or in other words cheaply overtaking of the bankrupt’s estate).
After all, the money drain can always be turned off quickly. In practice, the prospective person simply buys into the demands from the creditor banks, (or 50.1% of the creditor’s bank stocks), and shortly request them to be liquidated. The media house is facing bankruptcy, when the liquidation is missing. The only alternative then is often just the changing of demands into participation, in other words the prospective person becomes a shareholder with vote and control rights. The in this way seemingly independent media house is secretly as regards to content incorporated into the monopoly.
Today, no billion dollar expansion is possible without the proper financing. Where does this financing come from? – Which conditions have to be met, besides repayment and interest, because repayment and interest also offer secure government bonds? - Who has always had the money and loaned it away for high interest? – Where is most of the capital still concentrated today? – What does this have in common with the Wall Street and the US American politics?
Now, even the ownership shares of the 10.000 small, once independent US Radio Stations are spread throughout only a few huge media groups.
The most successful (most influential) movie makers can strategically be concentrated onto a few media groups and therefore be financially controlled. Nobody risks own millions in a movie production, if one can borrow the capital without risks. Current Example is the Studio “Dreamworks”, a Corporation of (Ex-Disney Boss) Jeffrey Katzenberg together with David Geffen and Steven Spielberg.
As a matter of fact, it would already be enough, to completely control the international sales of movies, and through this mean, only allow movies into the theatres, the television and the video libraries that manipulate into the wished direction. But why not just control the entire Production to begin with?
Result: Who has the money, can legally and democratically correct buy manipulation potential and therefore, after all, power, and discretely concentrate it into a small Power-group.
..
Knowledgeable folks will at this point argue, that Hollywood is for the most part not financed by some secret “figures”, but by the German tax deduction branch (100% allocation of losses), hence the German tax money. This is true, but the movie bonds/funds have no influence on the content of the production. Everything is financed, that sounds good and promising. A few old stars here and there and the millions are already being transferred. At the same time, not a single cent is made available for German movies. These are meagerly held alive (allows in this way no interference with the party-line and costs more tax funds).
Of course nobody wants to accuse the Hollywood-Elite, that here they have asserted their influence on the German body of law and that of its Hollywood-friendly tax laws, in order to over and over again take in big financially. Especially not since even though 50% of all financed movies are expensively finished, they will never be released. This does not matter to the Hollywood Giants, because their Million Salary is success independent and promptly paid out of the Budget (should the movie in fact unexpectedly become a success is a bonus given). And since nobody will most likely see the finished product as well as the fact that artistic quality was only a question of interpretation in the first place, the whole thing doesn’t even have to be embarrassing.
To the point: Who has good contacts to movie funds, secures himself for example a 50 million budget for a movie. 10 million will be paid for the script (that a Hollywood insider wrote or bought cheaply from a cab-driver and “worked over” expensively. Quality does not matter, since nobody will ever see the movie). The director gets another 10 million (because good names secure the financing, and the director a good friend is). And for yet another 10 million, to recruit a few old, worn out stars (Names that everyone knows, but that haven’t produced a successful movie in some time, for example Burt Reynolds, Jane Fonda, Grace Jones, Jessica Lang, Mickey Rourke etc.) For the 20 million left, a movie is then quickly thrown together in a friendly studio – so that everything remains legit and the movie funds will not lose their tax deductions in Germany. Of course, the budget was restlessly frittered away. Everything just following exactly the principle of “The Producers”. A few Hollywood-insiders can through this help of the German tax payers push millions to each other. Over and over, again and again; must be a nice thing, if you are a Hollywood-insider.
New German tax laws were allegedly supposed to circumvent this abuse: It is demanded, that the financiers can only write off the losses, when they have influence on the movie project, too. Not a problem: The Movie Fund lets a committee supervise the production. Whether the decision of the producers are already taken up by it and accepted before hand or it actually sometimes actively executes its power, is unimportant. When a movie is never going to be released anyway, does it not matter, when some rich unprofessional people want to see their ideas come true. And ideas that contradict with the party line of Hollywood are not risked to be mentioned by anybody in the Hollywood-Scene anyhow. After all, one doesn’t want to ruin the coming back to the parties and as result not get invited again.
Control through company participation
As directed to above, nobody can really be sure, who controls the billion dollar US stock market companies and media giants (as well as banks, industry, raw-materials, medicine, food, arms), when a clear tendency cannot be ignored neither. Of course there are names, (for example: Murdoch, Redstone, Bronfman, Saban, Goldensohn, Paley, Sarnoff, Sulzberger, Meyer-Graham etc.), but nobody can be sure, if the registered, official owner in fact has the control or is rather a puppet, which either shares believes with the Power Figures or carries out such.
Today, most media shares are also divided up into multiple multi-national media companies and holding companies that are rather hard to control from a legal standpoint. The capital shares of a company listed on the stock exchange do not have to be revealed, as long as the shares are not concentrated by more than 5% on one person. This means:
At least theoretically only 11 people can (for example one family) together control 11 corporations (for example: media houses) discretely with a majority, when each of them limits their shares to a maximum of 4.99% shares per Corp. (Ink.), in other words: Each person legally holds 11 discrete shares of 4.99% each, in for example several media houses. The shares stay when needed within the family and/or can be controlled from a small interest group legally and anonymously.
But who still wants to discretely control big volumes, registers these in the USA under the name of one or multiple neutral banks, US holdings, or Investment bonds which can then also be controlled from an offshore corporation or company, for example Switzerland Holding, Niderlaendische Antillen AG or Lichtenstein Foundations. Advantage: The de facto ownership structure of a Switzerland/Offshore holding company can be controlled anonymously through non registered bearer shares and of course do not have to be revealed. Whoever controls for example the Swiss holding also controls anonymously the US American stock volume. Simplified: The Swiss bearer shares can discretely be left in a bank safe or with a lawyer outside of the USA in order to then, if needed, assert the claims of ownership through a lawyer or bank as trustee. A Lichtenstein Foundation has no owner, as every German club. Here, a Foundation committee decides. This committee is bound to the guidelines of an anonymous donator.
Moreover, stocks can also be held under the name of a Swiss Bank. In that case is then for example the Shearson Lehman Bank controlling 51% of the holding company Z, that holds the majority in the XY Corporation which on the other hand holds majority in a TV channel.
The participation of the XY Corp. is of course legally registered in the USA; As well as the participation of the Z holding on the XY Corp. Though only the Swiss Bankers, protected by the Swiss banking secret know that the bank participation on the Z holding is held to 51% in the fiduciary name of a New York Financier and does not amount to the bank fortune.
The ownership rights of a TV channel are in this way maybe traceable with much effort up to the Z holding. Who really controls the Z holding remains Swiss banking secret and secures tax benefits.
In reality, the cover-up techniques are structured much more complicated across multiple banks, stocks, foundations, into diverse jurisdictions.
Consequence:
The concentration and control of the media onto, or in other words by a small interest group is possible and can be covered up strategically without much effort.
Who owns Reuters and the other big news-agencies?
Founded was Reuters in 1851, by Samuel Levi Joseph, the third son of a Rabbi from Kassel. Later, Joseph was baptized and took on the name Paul Julius Reuters* and married a banker’s daughter. He tried himself unfortunately unsuccessful first with the financial help of his Stepfather as a bookseller, distributor and journalist, to then travel to Paris suddenly in 1848 in order to work in a by Charles Havar owned news agency as a translator. He again, went to freelance unsuccessfully and eventually came back to Germany, this time to Aachen. Reuters starts to fly stock rates from Bruessel to Aachen via carrier pigeons. When the Ex-Havar employee Bernhard Wolff opens a news agency in Berlin through the financial help of Werner Siemens, Reuters establishes his agency in London following Siemens’ advice. He begins to telegraphically transmit stock rates to Paris and Berlin.
..
*THE REUTERS FACTOR Myths and Realities of Communicology: A Scenario by Michael Chanan www.mchanan.dial.pipex.com/reuters First published in Radical Science 16, Free Association Books, 1985; reprinted in Colin Chant, ed., Sources for the Study of Science, Technology and Eeveryday Life 1870-1950, Volume 2, Open University/Hodder and Stoughton, 1988
..
Official major shareholders of Reuters according to their own statement (www.reuters.com) are
- Reuters Founders Share Company 30% with Veto right*
- Fidelity Investments 9%
- Legal & General Investment 4%
- Barclays Bank 3.75%
- Merrill Lynch 3.48%
Behind these investments can be perfectly hidden (as seen above). After all we do not know whether the bank or the investment funds- even though the stocks are always held officially in the own name- are unofficially acting as trustees/fiduciaries.
..
The Veto-right is supposed to prevent “enemy” overtaking. In other words: Only certain, Paul Julius Reuter friendly major shareholders are accepted.
..
The structure of Reuters’ all 28.100 shareholders makes the smoke and mirror game clear.
Investment Associations, Trusts, Foundations 34%
Pension Funds (priv. Pension security funds) 24%
ADS (by JPMorgan in New York) 9%
Banks (not UK) 4%
Insurance companies 4%
Private shareholders 2%
Non profit companies 1%
Government 1%
The share holders are to 64 % from the UK/Great Britain, 19% from the USA, 11% from Europe (not UK) and 5% are not identified. The Reuters Founder Shares as well as stocks that are owned by Reuters’ employees were not considered.
And AP- Associated Press?
Associated Press (www.ap.org) is officially registered as a non profit organization that is owned by the connected 1500 US-daily newspapers.
Who controls the daily newspaper by a majority, also controls AP.
Since there are almost no independent daily papers anymore in the USA and there often exists only one “paper” in every big city, is the majority of US-news papers controlled by the big publishing houses and media giants and through these AP as well.
AP communicates what happens in the world to 1.700 Us-Newspaper und 5.000 Radio- and Television stations in the USA. Internationally 8500 newspaper-, radio- and television stations in 121 countries allow themselves to be informed by AP what their readers and viewers should come to know.
..
*Should there be two daily newspapers in one town by way of exception, are these often owned by the same publishing house, as for example the “BILD” (Workers-paper/Blue Collar Newspaper) and “DIE WELT” (White Collar Newspaper) by the Springer Publishing house.
The New York Times News Service (NYT)
sends news, articles and pictures to 506 other newspapers. The newspaper agency is owned by the New York Times, a newspaper that is treated as a speaking tube of the Power Figures by insiders, and can/should therefore be repeated in parrot fashion riskless and career-helpingly by all “reputable” journalists.
(Try to test how high the amount of articles in the international column of your daily newspaper by these 3 agencies is …)
Translated by K.Bode
Source: medienmonopol
comments: (0)