Since the MSM is now owned by only a few billionaires and they're rapidly losing ad revenue due to fewer and fewer subscribers each year they're now way too dependent on those with power and control. If a reporter's story or even personality angers a major supporter or client he/she will be history.
Note the current owner of the NY Times used to own the main newspaper in England. The massive pedo scandal which went on for years was never covered under his watch. Too many powerful people would have shut down his entire paper.
Please post with facts. He was the director general for the BBC (not a newspaper) and he is now the CEO of the NY Times (not the owner). And it WAS covered under his watch whilst he was at the BBC, that's the whole point!
At this point I read and listen to so many different sources daily it would be impossible to find all of them again.
So WHY doesn't Carlos Slim print stories on international pedophilia rings from a variety of sources and views to let the reader decide if the info is true or not? Is Carlos Slim afraid of the loss of advertising from the power elite?
Recall that one Indian-British (or Pakistani-British) journalist who made a name for himself reporting on the Princess Diana controversy and scandals while she was still alive? He received a lot of kudos as he tried to be impartial in relaying the views and complaints of both Diana and reps for Prince Charles and the Queen to allow the listener decide on their own who was right and to what degree. He avoided the overly emotional style of the lurid paps and tabloids. That's who we need now to cover the international aspects of child trafficking for pedophiles and Luciferian rituals on an international scale.
view the rest of the comments →
AgainstPedos ago
Since the MSM is now owned by only a few billionaires and they're rapidly losing ad revenue due to fewer and fewer subscribers each year they're now way too dependent on those with power and control. If a reporter's story or even personality angers a major supporter or client he/she will be history.
Note the current owner of the NY Times used to own the main newspaper in England. The massive pedo scandal which went on for years was never covered under his watch. Too many powerful people would have shut down his entire paper.
Yuke ago
Please post with facts. He was the director general for the BBC (not a newspaper) and he is now the CEO of the NY Times (not the owner). And it WAS covered under his watch whilst he was at the BBC, that's the whole point!
AgainstPedos ago
Just repeating what I was told by other posters on different sites many, many times.
ZalesMcMuffin ago
Then please correct those others, because they were all misinforming you. Right guy, right media entities, wrong position.
(Carlos Slim owns the NYT now -- in part, at least.)
AgainstPedos ago
At this point I read and listen to so many different sources daily it would be impossible to find all of them again.
So WHY doesn't Carlos Slim print stories on international pedophilia rings from a variety of sources and views to let the reader decide if the info is true or not? Is Carlos Slim afraid of the loss of advertising from the power elite?
Recall that one Indian-British (or Pakistani-British) journalist who made a name for himself reporting on the Princess Diana controversy and scandals while she was still alive? He received a lot of kudos as he tried to be impartial in relaying the views and complaints of both Diana and reps for Prince Charles and the Queen to allow the listener decide on their own who was right and to what degree. He avoided the overly emotional style of the lurid paps and tabloids. That's who we need now to cover the international aspects of child trafficking for pedophiles and Luciferian rituals on an international scale.