
Time Inc. Sells Itself to Meredith Corp., Backed by Koch Brothers - mudil
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/26/business/dealbook/time-inc-meredith-corporation-koch-brothers.html
======
danso
I grew up in a home that subscribed to Time Magazine, and am young to remember
how often that brand was touted in advertisements on TV. But it's been a long
time since I've associated prestige with that media brand, especially after it
was spun off from the actually profitable parts of Time Warner. With the
exception of their "Person of the Year" tradition, which draws attention but
seems to have as little actual influence as PEOPLE's sexiest man award. Quick,
try to name 2 people who are not Trump/Clinton who were on TIME's shortlist
last year: [http://time.com/4589502/person-of-the-
year-2016-shortlist/](http://time.com/4589502/person-of-the-
year-2016-shortlist/)

Maybe it's a bit of confirmation bias as I don't go out of my way to read Time
magazine anymore. But compare their nationally known work to that of Conde
Nast, another prestigious brand and also having major revenue problems as a
media company. Despite that, The New Yorker doesn't seem to have lessened at
all in the rate of influential and newsworthy pieces it produces (Rowan
Farrow's expose of Harvey Weinstein being one of the more recent notables
[0]).

If the Koch Brothers intend to use it part of their PR wing, they have a lot
to do to boost the brand so that people even pay attention.

Possibly relevant historical example: In 2010, another well-known national
magazine, Newsweek, was bought from the Washington Post for $1 by a mostly
unknown billionaire [0], Sidney Harman, of Harman Kardon fame. Harman died in
2011, so whatever plans he had for Newsweek for his own purposes went
unrealized. It was then sold to IBT Media, a mostly unknown company owned by a
somewhat controversial charismatic Christian sect [2]. Was Newsweek used to
advance its founders causes? Hard to say, like TIME, I can't remember the last
time a Newsweek exclusive had national influence the way the New Yorker
regularly does, though some people here may faintly recall their epic fuckup
about Bitcoin's founder [3]. And having an independent, private source of
wealth hasn't helped Newsweek be any more stable than it was when it got sold
for $1 [4].

[0] [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/business/media/newsweek-
bo...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/business/media/newsweek-bought-by-
digital-news-company-ibt.html)

[1] [https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/harvey-
weinsteins-a...](https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/harvey-weinsteins-
army-of-spies)

[2] [http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/03/newsweek-ibt-
olivet...](http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/03/newsweek-ibt-olivet-david-
jang/)

[3] [http://www.newsweek.com/2014/03/14/face-behind-
bitcoin-24795...](http://www.newsweek.com/2014/03/14/face-behind-
bitcoin-247957.html)

[4] [http://www.foliomag.com/newsweek-lays-off-impoco-others-
peop...](http://www.foliomag.com/newsweek-lays-off-impoco-others-people-
move-02-14-17/)

~~~
puranjay
Any time I've landed on the website itself, I've seen nothing but "Top 10"
lists.

That really killed the brand for me. I don't associate quality journalism and
storytelling with Top 10 lists. Plenty of other websites do these lists far,
far better.

~~~
saturdaysaint
I haven't read Time in ages, but "Top 10" lists were their bread and butter in
the 90's. The whole mission seems quaint now, but you really could feel sort
of caught up with US news and pop culture by reading a slim magazine once a
week.

------
scandox
Last time I read Time magazine I was shocked at the almost childlike
simplicity of the content. It reminded me of a magazine we have here for
elderly people of minimal education called Ireland’s Own...it does interviews
with sweater wearing singers from country towns and articles on the potential
historical reality of Fairies...now that I think about it it is a cut above
Time.

~~~
throwawayjava
I had the same reaction when reading Time recently.

Has anyone gone back through the archives to determine if this has always been
the case?

~~~
aedron
I read Time around the turn of the millenium (got it as part of some promotion
for college students). It definitely had that geriatric feel. '60 Minutes' on
print is pretty much how I felt about it.

------
indubitable
An absolutely phenomenal article that's directly related to many of the issues
being discussed in this thread is, "The Bad News About the News" [1] by Robert
Kaiser. Kaiser worked at the Washington Post for more than 50 years as a
journalist and editor. He decided to retire shortly after Jeff Bezos purchased
it.

It's an interesting article discussing the transition between the days of the
media having a stranglehold on information dissemination and the transition to
modern times where the internet has mostly supplanted their role there. And
the massive implications and changes that took place internally, and now
externally, during this process.

[1] - [https://www.brookings.edu/research/essays/2014/bad-
news](https://www.brookings.edu/research/essays/2014/bad-news)

------
KeepTalking
Short on content, long on medication ads is how I view Time. Time has suffered
from the lack of a differentiated digital content strategy that is compelling.
I default to WaPo, NYT, Economist, FinTimes, Atlantic and the BBC.

~~~
puranjay
NYT, Economist and Atlantic are all good. But good God, WaPo has let itself go
with HuffPo-tier headlines and hysteria.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Completely disagree. WaPo is doing incredible journalism and scanning their
front page at any given time reveals normal headlines, definitely not what
HuffPo does, and definitely not “hysteria”.

~~~
dominotw
> definitely not what HuffPo does

I went to their homepages, both of them had some article on "harry and
markle", watchdog suing trump, sexual assault article.

Whats the difference?

PS: just scanning the homepage put me in bad mood, why would ppl voluntarily
do this to themselves.

~~~
azernik
"Harry and Markle": A British prince marrying am American is celebrity gossip,
but of the kind that makes the front page of quite venerable Western news
outlets.

The CFPB official suing Trump is a serious ongoing crisis which is not about
personal injury, but rather a dispute about who is legitimate head of a
federal agency. It is the literal _top_ story of the Wall Street Journal.

And whatever you might think about the the crisis about changing mores on
sexual harassment and assault, it is right now hitting Congress and changing
committee chairs, endangering reelections, and may lead to resignations.

~~~
dominotw
I wasn't saying they are not important issues. I was just questioning GP's
assertion that they have entirely different content.

~~~
RobAtticus
The content wasn't in question, the headlines were. The assertion was HuffPo
has more hysterical headlines than WaPo

~~~
RobAtticus
Responding to your comment here:

WaPo headline for CFPB story: Fight over consumer watchdog agency goes on as
two acting directors try to take command

HuffPo headline: CIVIL WAR AT FINANCE WATCHDOG!

One is clearly more hysterical than the other. The story content may be
roughly the same, but the headline is not. And if the headline is so
clickbaity, it's probably not unlikely that the content is more
dramatic/hysterical than is necessary too.

------
Hasz
Allegedly, the Koch Brothers don't plan to take an active role in the company.

"Steve Lombardo, a spokesman for Koch Industries, also said that the Kochs had
no plans to take an active role in the expanded company. “This is a passive
financial investment made through our equity development arm,” Mr. Lombardo
said. The company’s role in the transaction, he said, was similar to that of a
bank."

Regardless of what you think of the Koch brothers, this appears to be a
mundane deal sensationalized by the specter of the Koch brothers.

~~~
stochastic_monk
If conservative billionaires are alike, the way WSJ has tanked since being
bought by Murdoch portends that Time will be a disaster.

(For example, it started peddling "Mueller needs to resign" nonsense after the
indictments under easily falsifiable excuses.)

[See [https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/30/murdoch-fox-
muelle...](https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/30/murdoch-fox-mueller-
trump-244333.)]

~~~
adventured
What have the WSJ's subscriber numbers done since Murdoch purchased it?

~~~
1337biz
Needs to be viewed also in context to the market.

------
forapurpose
I wonder why Bill Gates, in contrast to the Koch brothers, stays out of social
and political issues. He seems to care deeply and many of his goals, such as
advancing health and education, depend on politics much more than on his
money.

For example, the Kochs work hard to reframe discussion of government revenue /
taxes, regulation, and government overall in order to reduce all of them
(whatever you think of their goals, that is the case). If Gates invested
politically in his goals, there might be much more government support for
health and education, via funding, research, availability to citizens, and
policy innovation. Despite Gate's vast wealth, the U.S. government spends
orders of magnitude more than him; a million dollars influencing politics
could leverage far more resources than a million spent directly on research.

Of course, everyone would be better off if the fate of the U.S. depended on
democracy - one person, one vote - and not on the manipulations and influence
of three people.

~~~
tomcam
He is a frequent political to Democratic candidates. Just visit
[http://classic.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/advindsea.shtml](http://classic.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/advindsea.shtml)
and fill in Gates, William, with Microsoft as the employer. Most of it's the
Microsoft PAC but he also favors such luminaries as Debbie Wasserman Schultz,
who torpedoed Bernie's candidacy.

------
tanepiper
Much like the "world" winners of things like the Superbowl and WWE Wrestling -
Time I think is very much seen as an American brand and not much notice is
take of things like "Man of the Year" outside of it.

It's a shame it's being bought by this lot though - of course they can make
their man of the year whoever the like now, including Trump and other
controversial people.

~~~
dictum
> of course they can make their man of the year whoever the like now,
> including Trump and other controversial people

Can't beat their historical picks, Hitler and Stalin (twice), both of which
met the original goal of the award:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15785040](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15785040)

------
somberi
I found this podcast, an interview with Charles Koch, interesting. There are
two parts to it. Whatever the ideological issues may be, I found he spoke in
an engaging way.

[http://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-hate-koch-brothers-
part-...](http://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-hate-koch-brothers-part-1/)
[http://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-hate-koch-brothers-
part-...](http://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-hate-koch-brothers-part-2/)

~~~
pcunite
Charles seems like a nice guy. Curious, what is the political problem with
him?

[https://youtu.be/Z7Pj2rKdKII](https://youtu.be/Z7Pj2rKdKII)

A quote from the video: _If you don 't learn to do dirty jobs, if you don't
learn unpleasant work, by the time you're in your 30s, you never learn to work
productively ... you learn from that you don't want to do that the rest of
your life, so you had better find some aptitude._

He says that after telling about a time his father made him dig out weeds.

~~~
danso
I don't hate him, in fact, I've read a lot about and been impressed with some
of his goals, particularly criminal reform [0]. However, I've never been
overly political, and I'm currently not in the population most affected by the
influence of his campaign spending. Someone who is greatly affected by
something like, say, reproductive rights, would probably feel differently
about how Charles Koch's money -- whatever its commendable intentions -- helps
to elect politicians who aim to rollback reproductive rights.

[0] [https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/do-
the-...](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/do-the-koch-
brothers-really-care-about-criminal-justice-reform/386615/)

~~~
Turing_Machine
The Koch brothers are pro-choice, as far as I know.

They also support gay marriage and an end to drug prohibition.

[http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/14/politics/david-koch-gay-
rights...](http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/14/politics/david-koch-gay-rights-
abortion-democrats/index.html)

~~~
danenania
Does that match up with who they fund? My understanding is that they are
funding lots of politicians who push xenophobia, homophobia, anti-feminism,
and the drug war.

Unless I'm mistaken about that, I don't think it particularly matters what
their personal beliefs are, since they are working against those supposed
beliefs with their money and their actions.

If you're willing to sacrifice human rights to get tax cuts and deregulation,
it shows what really matters to you, and what sort of person you really are.

~~~
Turing_Machine
Perfect politicians don't exist.

Did you vote for Barack Obama in 2008, despite his opposition to gay marriage?

------
llamataboot
The /actual/ headline, which is supposed to be general HN rules.

Time Inc. Sells Itself to Meredith Corp., Backed by Koch Brothers

WTF cares about Family Circle? Clearly this story is only newsworthy because
of the potential propaganda angle.

------
rev_null
Anyone know why the headline was changed on HN to remove the Koch Brothers?

~~~
dredmorbius
Almost certainly: an attempt to de-fang a discussion that would almost
certainly be highly political, and in the hope that discussion of that element
might at least tend to be amongst those who'd read the article rather than
responded to the headline.

Information delivery rates matter.

~~~
sctb
A moderator changed it to “Time Inc. Sells Itself to Meredith Corp, owner of
Family Circle and AllRecipes” for that reason (after there were plenty of such
tangential comments as evidence), but we've changed it back.

------
Chinjut
The appropriate headline here would be "Time Inc. Sells Itself to Meredith
Corp., Backed by Koch Brothers". That is the actual headline of this article,
and as far as I can tell, there is no inaccuracy in it nor any good reason to
have changed it for Hacker News.

------
leifaffles
Looking forward to Rachel Maddow's monologue tomorrow night on "dark money in
politics".

~~~
gnarbarian
"brought to you by Open Society Foundations"

~~~
shard972
I think this recent point made by Nigel Farage in the EU parliament sums it
all up.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZLr0TtPjUc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZLr0TtPjUc)

~~~
mcintyre1994
...Nigel Farage, involved in the Brexit rererendum on the leave side, speaking
out against dark money in politics? I'm sure he's utterly sincere.

------
subroutine
Maybe Trump will be Time's person of the year after all.

~~~
latch
Why would you say that?

~~~
idle_processor
The implication is that the Koch brothers gain power or favors by undermining
Time's selection process, making Trump PotY. Whether it's because Trump wants
to be PotY or because it boosts the right wing are open to interpretation.

I am not endorsing the OP's statement, just trying to clarify.

------
wnevets
I guess a certain someone gets to become the time person of the year after
all.

~~~
joshmn
Surprisingly, they're not his biggest fan. At all.

~~~
DonHopkins
Once he nukes NK, they'll fall in line along with everyone else. ...Or at
least, that's the plan.

------
pcunite
This is a fascinating thought process on hiring.

 _We can hire all the brightest MBAs in the world, and if they don 't have the
right values, we will fail. We hire based on values first - then talent._

[https://youtu.be/Z7Pj2rKdKII?t=25m12s](https://youtu.be/Z7Pj2rKdKII?t=25m12s)

Other quotes:

 _What are my capabilities that will create superior values for others? What
are the best opportunities to do that?_

~~~
forapurpose
Many companies say things like that, have mission statements, etc. It all
depends on what is meant by "values" and, much more importantly, how it's
implemented on the ground. Sometimes, "values" means that you agree with the
boss or at least don't challenge them in a fundamental way. Sometimes it just
means that they want someone to 'fit' in the culture, and often, regardless of
what's stated, the only values that will get you hired/fired are profits and
office politics.

The Kochs are a special case, though, with their very strong political
beliefs; I wonder if "values" refers to that.

------
mc32
Now we have two (more) major newsoutlets owned by activist owners --WaPo and
Time Mag.

Wish there were more independence in the media. Or at least fewer owners who
will push agendas. Time will tell.

~~~
twblalock
I like the British media, because they don't pretend to be impartial.
Impartiality is impossible, so it's better to be honest about that fact than
to pretend to be impartial as the American media does.

~~~
mc32
On the other hand the state sponsored one forces you to pay an involuntary fee
and it is not all that balanced a source.

~~~
zimablue
I'll pay a fee all day to have some fraction of the population getting less of
their news from the Daily Mail etc.

Let's triple the fee and get some state newspapers and advertising.

~~~
gaius
What if the BBC's politics (ie where it advertises all its jobs) were aligned
with the Mail rather than the Graun? Would you still be so keen, or would you
be among those calling for it to be abolished?

~~~
zimablue
Abolished but it's never going to get close to being that gross.

They'll have plenty of spin and perspective that I disagree with but the rest
of our media is absolutely festering. Anything that isn't owned by an 80 year
old billionaire is welcome to me. They simply can't be any worse.

