« Gedmin: Where Are Those "No-Blood-For-Oil" Banners When You Need Them? | Main | Schroeder's Plea for the European Social Model »

Comments

Sorry, I don't get it, what's the connection of that to Bertelsmann, German media etc.?

Note from David: Read it again. After the second or third reading the posting's meaning might become clearer for you.

Good luck!

I don't think this view of Bertelsman is entirely fair. Maybe they have published 'Checkpoint' but a publisher has the same aim as any other business: make profits. A quick scan of the books advertised on Random House's website shows quite a few anti-Bush pieces but also books that are called:

- Do as I say (Not as I do): http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780385513494

- Tower of Babble: http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9781400054947

- The vast Left Wing Conspiracy: http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780307237774

Random House does not seem particulary anti-American. They just publish any book that sells

@Phil

>>"I don't think this view of Bertelsman is entirely fair. Maybe they have published 'Checkpoint' but a publisher has the same aim as any other business: make profits."

Right, Phil, you're OK with peddling hate as long as the motive is to make a profit, right? No different than a prostitute with AIDS, really. Just trying to make a buck.

Guys, It will take a much larger brain than mine to tease out all the threads in this collusive knot.

Our chore is to part the heavy curtain and reveal the "wizards" working the levers. But we can't expect big players like Soros, the Mohn's, the Rich's, friends of Chirac like Vivendi exec. Rousseau, and progressive Swiss NGO's to make it easy for us to define their collusions. These players have created multitudes of front groups to safely launder their contributions and anonymously propagate their agendas.

My hope is that other Medienkritik readers will grab some of the loose connections that David and Ray have highlighed and tug on them to see where they lead.

More on Bertelsmann: In May of '05 Bertelsmann AG entered into a 49:51 joint venture with Shanghai's Liao Ning Publishing House.

Phil, Bertelsmann is intent on remaining a privately-held company to avoid the profit-driven management that an independant, adversarial board of directors inevitably demands. My guess is that by remaining a private company, the Mohn's are demonstrating their real interest, that of using Bertelmann's power of publication to politick for global progressive agendas.

In light of this, I find it interesting that it is willing to bow to a 51% majority when that majority is China's Communist Party. Could it be they share the same agenda?
-Steve

These rich TRANZIs hide their involvement very well. It's a real Gordian Knot trying to untangel it.

The original point of this thread was that the supposedly "objective" AICGS was shilling for a firm that derives great profit from peddling hate directed at the US, and that the equating of hatemongering with "global leadership" is hard to justify unless you happen to be a hired toady of the firm so honored. I think it highly unlikely that no one on the "objective" staff of AICGS has read the post, yet, apparently, none of them have dared to utter a word of rebutal. One wonders why, if they truly believe that Bertelsmann is such an exemplary "global leader." I, for one, would very much like to hear from AICGS how they justify honoring the publishers of magazines that grace their covers with quasi-racist caricatures of Americans in the style of Julius Streicher as "global leaders." Speculation about a "vast, left wing conspiracy" isn't necessary to connect the dots here. In fact, they are counter-productive. The facts speak loudly enough for themselves.

David & Ray,

did you contact AICGS (or Bertelsmann)?

It seems to me very unethical to award your largest financial supporter with a leadership award. It's like giving ambassadorships to the biggest campaign contributors, who are not qualified in foreign policy and don't speak the language. I don't mean Timken. I don't want to change the subject. And I am not giving excuses for AICGS. I seriously think you should contact them and complain about awarding a price to their anti-American financial supporters

Ray, you know where AICGS is. Why don't you pop in and have a chat with Jackson Janes and confront him.

@ helian,

You're are taking my quote out of context. My main point was that Random House publishes quite a few 'right wing' books. Taking that into account it becomes quite difficult to argue that Random House tries to further some anti-American viewpoint.
Furthermore I cannot see the point of mentioning a $10m advance payment to Bill Clinton. What's the point? I bet that Random House's competitors in the book market offered payments.

@ opunia,

While you are right of course that Bertelsmann is privately held, it does not mean that they have a lesser desire to get a handsome amount of profit. Some of the most profitable companies in Europe remain private. From the top of my head I can think of Aldi, Lidl or Rothschild' Investment Banking. How would you explain the fact that Bertelsmann managed to become of the global leaders in their industry if not by being very results-driven? As for the joint venture in China... I cannot think of many companies (American or European) that have not expanded into China in recent years.

@ Atlanticus,

I must say that I am hardly thrilled with Timken myself. That said, this post is about AICGS. Furthermore, I don't see what "confronting" Mr. Janes or any of the other people who run AICGS would accomplish. They clearly have a set agenda and probably don't care what we think, especially since we don't send them donations. The important thing here is to let our readers know what is going on at these so-called institutes for German-American relations that fancy themselves as objective transatlantic intermediaries when they are in fact biased academics being financially underwritten by some very large interests.

@ Ray

It seems to me to be worthwhile telling AICGS that you don't like what they do and that you have told some x thousand US and German readers about it. That should motivate them to try defend themselves and be more careful...

Anyway, you posted their contact info. Did anyone of your readers contact them and get a reply? Rolf Schwanitz responded, so why shouldn't AICGS and Bertelsmann respond?

I'd be interested to hear their side of the story. Audiatur et altera pars. And you wrote "We would sure appreciate an explanation." So, where is their explanation?

I think preaching to the choir is not sooo interesting. Confronting the bad guys is more fun. Perhaps some computer expert could set up a website with such a script:

http://act.darfurgenocide.org/DG/MessageActionReturn.cfm

Medienkritik could phrase a standard text for each "urgent action" type of project to safe time for the readers, but every reader can change the text as he sees fit. Wouldn't that be a good addition to preaching to the choir? Okay, folks who are not part of the choir, read this blog as well.

Ray, David, and John

Bertelsmann AG’s role and relationship with(and to) the media is only one aspect to this conglomerate, unfortunately the length and breadth of the subject extends into history and area’s far beyond the current discussion which would sure would probably fill several volumes of a book. However, I do think I can give you a glimpse into an area I’ve been pursuing as part of a ‘The EU…Who‘s Running the Asylum?’ exercise, where Bertelsmann is, without question, a member in good-standing. Heck…I think some may even find it interesting.

Bertelsmann AG describes their Ownership as,

‘…a non-public stock corporation. Its shareholders are the Bertelsmann Stiftung, Groupe Bruxelles Lambert and the Mohn family.‘

and voting rights are,

‘…held by the Bertelsmann Stiftung and the Mohn family are exercised by Bertelsmann Verwaltungsgesellschaft (BVG). BVG controls 75% of voting rights, while Groupe Bruxelles Lambert controls 25%.’

Now take a look at Bertelsmann Stiftung. Not only are their ’Key Projects’ quite interesting, this particular branch is also a major financier into the study and development of policy for a variety of ‘think-tanks’ - which, for the present, I’ll leave only described as ‘other’ - and… not solely for Germany.

When you take Bertelsmann AG’s 'History' as described in the 'Report IHC' into account, I think this indeed a very pertinent and interesting organization - yet, on a scale which extends far beyond the media.

@Phil

>>"You're are taking my quote out of context. My main point was that Random House publishes quite a few 'right wing' books. Taking that into account..."

I'm not sure why you cite my name in front of this blurb, since it doesn't relate to anything I've actually said. Perhaps it would help you to follow the argument if you consider the fact that whores can sleep with both liberals and conservatives without necessarily being liberals or conservatives themselves.

@Phil:

"You're are taking my quote out of context. My main point was that Random House publishes quite a few 'right wing' books. Taking that into account it becomes quite difficult to argue that Random House tries to further some anti-American viewpoint. "

Granted, Random House (and every other large publisher) publishes books covering a wide variety of political viewpoints. I think the red flag with "Checkpoint" is that it allegedly (I haven't read it, so I can't say for sure) actually advocates the assassination of a real, sitting President. If in fact it does that, then I assume you'd agree that such is beyond the pale.

"Furthermore I cannot see the point of mentioning a $10m advance payment to Bill Clinton. What's the point? I bet that Random House's competitors in the book market offered payments."

The advance was extraordinarily high for a non-fiction book written by a non-professional writer. According to this entry on A Book Publisher Blog (http://jwikert.typepad.com/the_average_joe/2005/04/whats_the_avera.html), the average book advance is $10,000, and I've heard that a top-rated fiction author like, say, John Grisham typically gets a $1-2M advance. At the time the Random House advance to Clinton was announced, many people in the industry predicted that Random House would not come close to recouping the advance in sales. It appears now that they were right, and that RH lost millions on the book. One can reasonably argue that this was just a bad business judgement. But one could also argue that it doesn't pass the smell test, and that it comes across as a quid pro quo of some sort.


The comments to this entry are closed.

Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28