Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Carlos Slim Helú: The Reticent Media Baron
Carlos Slim Helú: The Reticent Media Baron
Carlos Slim Helú has been criticized as an “evil monopolist” and praised as a man “focusing more and more on using his wealth to improve the world.”
MEXICO CITY — Carlos Slim Helú was clearly annoyed. He had invited dozens of foreign correspondents to lunch one day last fall and, after many questions about business trends, one journalist pressed him on how it felt to be worth so much in a country in which many people struggle to get by.
Mr. Slim cut off the questioner and defended his stewardship of a vast business empire. His curt tone made clear that he did not favor that line of questioning.
Mr. Slim, Mexico’s richest man and now a major shareholder in and lender to The New York Times, has a complex relationship with the news media. He invests money in an array of television and newspaper companies and says he sees a bright future for those media companies that adapt.
But when the news media focus their spotlight on him, he sometimes gives the impression that he wants to be left alone to make more money in peace.
An avid newspaper reader of what he calls the “paper generation,” Mr. Slim says he sees the shift to digital news, which has left newspaper companies struggling, as not necessarily being their death knell. He likens them to transport companies at the turn of the 20th century that grappled with the advent of motorcars. Those that stuck to horses went belly up.
With telecommunications, retailing and construction companies under his command, Mr. Slim looms large over the media landscape in his country. Notoriously thin-skinned, he does not have to pick up the phone and bellow at those who publish and broadcast something he does not like. His vast resources often translate into less-than-critical coverage.
Mr. Slim declined through his spokesman and son-in-law, Arturo Elias, to be interviewed for this article.
Raymundo Riva Palacio, a veteran journalist in Mexico City, said that after he wrote a column in El Universal newspaper in 2006 condemning Mr. Slim as a monopolist, a Slim adviser threatened to remove newspaper ads from his companies.
That was no small threat. Mr. Slim’s holdings are so vast that he controls a large chunk of all advertising countrywide. Eduardo García, a Mexican journalist who runs a Spanish-language financial news Web site and follows Mr. Slim, estimated his wealth at almost $44 billion as of the end of 2008.
“I took it as part of the natural dynamic between the media and the powers that be in Mexico,” Mr. Riva Palacio said, adding that the incident was quietly resolved. “That’s how things work here.”
Mr. Elias, the Slim spokesman, said that no ads were removed and that Mr. Slim does not use his economic might that way. “We are an important advertiser, yes, but that doesn’t give us a right to meddle in the editorial side,” Mr. Elias said.
Mr. Slim built his fortune buying distressed companies and turning them around, but he joined the top ranks of the world’s billionaires when he bought the Mexican telephone monopoly, Teléfonos de México, known as Telmex, from the government in 1990. His critics say his political connections won him the company, but he has countered that his winning bid of $1.76 billion was above market price.
Today, even though Mexico’s telephone market is ostensibly open to competition, its rates are among the highest in the world. Telmex controls more than 90 percent of the local market for fixed lines and more than 70 percent of the cellphone market. Competitors say the company throws up repeated obstacles and regulators are reluctant to act.
When it comes to the media, Mr. Slim’s family businesses have invested in a variety of television networks and bought a 1 percent stake in The Independent newspaper in Britain last year.
“His leverage is tremendous,” said Mr. García, who publishes a financial news Web site in Mexico City, (sentidocomun.com.mx), that tracks Mr. Slim’s many holdings. “That’s how he muffles all the criticisms that might come his way.”
He may muffle some critics, but not all. Denise Dresser, a Mexican political scientist, regularly suggests in newspaper columns that favorable government treatment, rather than business acumen, made him rich.
“Going down in history as an evil monopolist who fleeced Mexican consumers is not an image of himself that he likes, but it’s a true image,” she said. “The possibility that he would throw his weight around itself acts as a gag.”
But as Mexico’s recession deepens, Mr. Slim’s critics are multiplying. Last week, he forecast grim times for Mexico and received a barely disguised rebuke from President Felipe Calderón, who prefers upbeat assessments, and said, “Those who have received the most from this great nation” are obligated to help.
Mr. Slim bristles at suggestions that he is not doing his part for Mexico. “I think it’s perverse to believe that there shouldn’t be strong companies in poor countries,” he told the journalists who attended the media lunch last fall.
Behind the scenes, though, he deploys a team of lawyers to fight efforts by the government to enforce antitrust laws against him.
The country’s Federal Competition Commission is looking into Mr. Slim’s companies. But the agency is outspent and outmanned by Mr. Slim. His companies “spend more on a single case than our entire annual budget,” said an official at the commission, who insisted on anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about agency matters.
Even though Mr. Slim sees moneymaking opportunities in the media, Raúl Trejo, a journalism professor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, said Mr. Slim is not an aspiring media tycoon who dictates news coverage.
At a dinner in London in December, after Mr. Slim bought his initial Times Company stock, a group of British newspaper editors expressed astonishment at the large size of the Times newsroom, which has roughly 1,300 reporters and editors. “He gave no indication whether he knew the size of the staff,” said a participant, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the meeting was private.
Mr. Elias said recently that Mr. Slim considered his latest investment in The Times — $250 million, for which he will receive a 14 percent interest rate and warrants that are convertible into Times Company shares — as a business deal.
He already owns 6.9 percent of the company and has lost tens of millions on that investment. Under the new financial arrangement, that stake could grow to 17 percent, though he will receive no representation on the company’s board and no shares with special voting rights.
Bankers representing The Times approached Mr. Slim with the investment opportunity, Slim advisers say. Those bankers, at the firm SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, had first approached The Times with the idea of a deal with Mr. Slim, said a Times spokeswoman, Catherine Mathis.
Besides the financial benefits, those who know Mr. Slim also see in the deal an effort to bolster his reputation by linking himself with a well-known brand.
Stung by suggestions that he is a some kind of robber baron — a label used by Eduardo Porter, a Times editorial writer, in a 2007 op-ed article — Mr. Slim has granted more interviews in recent years and expanded his philanthropic work.
“Unlike a great number of business guys who are only focused on the latest numbers, he has a variety of interests and is focusing more and more on using his wealth to improve the world,” said Alvin Toffler, the futurist author, who is a friend of Mr. Slim’s.
It is not merely Mr. Slim’s resources that help swing coverage his way, Mexican journalists say. Rather, they say, Mr. Slim, a widowed father of six, has an unassuming, avuncular persona.
He often shuffles into events alone, his bodyguards well out of sight. Addressing the press, Mr. Slim can appear ill at ease, resembling at times a small business owner rather than Mexico’s richest man.
And even when newspapers ran columns criticizing him for his recent negative comments about the Mexican economy, the front pages of leading papers in Mexico City all ran reports on Thursday of a rumored romance between Mr. Slim and Queen Noor of Jordan — speculation that was quickly quashed by Mr. Elias.
“We journalists cover so many bad guys here in Mexico, so many big egos, that Slim, despite all his faults, doesn’t appear all that bad,” said Mr. Riva Palacio, the Mexico City journalist.
Obama Follows Media
Obama Follows Media, Pushes for Pay Caps
Populism's march continues with compensation restrictions for TARP recipients, but economists warn that wage controls 'never work.'
As in the 1930s, green-eyed populists are once again staring resentfully at the pay and lifestyles of corporate executives and demanding change.
Democrats in Congress and the news media have long pushed for pay caps for the very rich. President Barack Obama complained about “corporate excess” while campaigning and had introduced a “say on pay” bill while in the Senate, according to CNN. But on Feb. 4, Obama took the first real steps toward wage restrictions.
“For top executives to award themselves these kinds of compensation packages in the midst of this economic crisis isn’t just bad taste – it’s a bad strategy – and I will not tolerate it,” Obama declared on Feb. 4.
Obama said the government will be “demanding some restraint” and will prohibit senior executives of companies getting money from the federal bailout from earning more than $500,000 (other compensation will be restricted to stocks that cannot be cashed until the government is repaid).
The networks barely criticized Obama’s plan, while CNN anchors praised the move. CBS’s “Early Show” called Obama’s move “trimming the fat,” while ABC’s Terry Moran summed up Obama’s speech: “For Americans disgusted by big bonuses and the lifestyles that go with them, his message was clear. This country’s culture of excess must come to an end.”
Anthony Mason’s Feb. 4 report for CBS “Evening News” only included two experts and neither criticized the policy. One of them, Neil Weinberg of Forbes, said there had been “an executive pay orgy that has been going on in this country for far two long.” Another said “sometimes you need an external whack.”
CNN anchors and reporters welcomed the plan. Ed Henry told “Anderson Cooper 360” viewers that the move was “wildly popular” and Larry King told his audience Obama was taking on “corporate fat cats.” The decision was “guaranteed to make a lot of Americans stand up and cheer,” according to Campbell Brown.
Historically the media have complained about “staggering” salaries and profits of Wall Street and other businesses.
At this point the compensation rules would not be retroactive to institutions that took money from the first $350 billion loaned by the Treasury to banks as part of the Toxic Asset Relief Program (TARP), but that could change. Right now companies like Goldman Sachs would not have to comply, yet that financial group announced the very same day that it would like to repay the TARP loan from the Treasury Department.
Goldman released a statement the same day Obama made the salary cap announcement. “Operating our business without the government capital would be an easier thing to do,” Goldman’s Chief Financial Officer David Viniar said to Bloomberg.com. “We’d be under less scrutiny and under less pressure.”
Goldman rival Morgan Stanley also wants to be rid of the TARP according to Forbes.com. Its CFO Thomas Colm Kelleher told those gathered at a Credit Suisse investor conference that the company would like to repay its $10 billion loan as soon as possible.
We Can Only Pay You a Fraction of What We Used to Pay You
A pay cap of $500,000 would be a huge pay cut for many executives even though it “sounds like a ton of money.” CNBC’s Melissa Francis was one of the few reporters to present this perspective. Francis told “Today” viewers on Feb. 4 that Goldman Sachs’ CEO Lloyd Blankfein made $68.5 million in 2007. How would you like to keep working, but for 1/137th the salary?
Economist Gary Becker was skeptical that the caps with have the intended result and wrote that wage and price controls “never work.” Becker said that such caps will encourage companies to hire attorneys and accountants to work around the rules and will also put those companies that are in trouble in a bad position – because they will be unable to afford top talent.
Economist and Business & Media Institute adviser Walter Williams once wrote something similar. According to Williams, companies must put a value on a good CEO’s contribution – which sometimes amounts to turning around a failing multimillion-dollar business. And they have competition to contend with.
"If one company has an effective CEO, it is not the only company that would like to have him on the payroll," Williams wrote. "In order to keep him, the company must pay him enough so that he can't be lured elsewhere."
Bloomberg quoted a compensation consultant on Feb. 11 who said that a half-million dollars “may not buy a seasoned executive for a major
In fact, according to that Bloomberg article only 14 CEOs in the Fortune 1000 make less than $500,000.
While the new rules are only part of Goldman’s reasons for wanting to repay its TARP loan (Viniar told Bloomberg “we’d like to get out from under those [compensation restrictions]”), there are signs that salary caps may be imposed on other businesses too.
According to Chris Isidore of CNNMoney.com, businesses should expect more signs of government action on executive pay – even for companies that didn’t take federal funds.
Isidore’s article pointed out that the public’s mood now supports wage restrictions and quoted Robert McCormick, chief policy officer for Glass Lewis & Co., a research firm advising institutional investors.
“McCormick said it is almost certain that so called ‘say on pay’ rules will pass Congress and be signed into law this year. In fact, Obama was a co-sponsor on such a measure when he was in Congress,” Isidore wrote.
That’s certainly what Democratic Congressman Barney Frank wants. Frank said the TARP compensation restrictions could be extended to all businesses, according to Financial Week.
Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote in the Feb. 6 Wall Street Journal that such salary caps violate the Constitution and economic sense.
“[T]he federal government wants to interfere with private employment contracts already entered into – and regulate those not yet signed – in order to satisfy the perceived populist instincts of the electorate,” Napolitano said. The caps also constitute a “taking” which “is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment.”
San Diego Union-Tribune staff writer, Dean Calbreath, called the uproar over executive pay limits “misguided” on Feb. 8, but even his column on the issue included criticism that some network reports left out.
Calbreath quoted Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill’s claim that the cap is “a huge mistake,” as well as Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard executive who advised Sen. John McCain during his presidential bid.
Fiorina said the cap was a problem because “the opportunity to be rewarded for taking prudent risk is fundamental to our economic vitality and strength.” A lobbyist with Financial Services Roundtable told Calbreath that salaries should be determined by the open market.
Jealous Journalists Champion Pay Caps
Network reporters barely criticized Obama’s plan to cap executive salaries, while CNN praised them. Some reporters mentioned how angry Americans are about executives making millions during an economic downturn. But only in rare cases were critics of the plan and its downsides mentioned. The unbalanced coverage isn’t a surprise given the news media’s history of complaints about overpaid executives.
“Stratospheric.” “Staggering.” Those are just two of the words network reporters have used since 2006 to bash CEOs and other executives for making “obscene” profits.
Businessmen are often put on defense in the news – commonly over how much they earn. A yearlong study of American businessmen and women found them portrayed negatively 57 percent of the time in evening news coverage.
Brian Williams talked of “runaway pay” and “stratospheric sums” in April 2006, while NBC’s Anne Thompson described Lee Raymond, Exxon’s former CEO, as “unapologetic” for making so much money. Would Thompson ask any union worker to apology for making too much money, despite the havoc wreaked on the auto industry from union contracts?
Lisa Sylvester and Lou Dobbs were in agreement on Oct. 19, 2006 that CEOs make too much money. “A little unfair indeed, Lou,” Sylvester said.
An arrogant media delivers Orwellian thought control
The media has been outright arrogant in their presentations. They seldom even attempt to cover up their OPINIONATED PREJUDICE during their coverage of Obama. They often display giddiness for everything OBAMA; thus, further enticing this numbing euphoria amongst the masses, those volatile emotional crazed Barry fans and cheerleaders that are becoming increasing brained washed by a mass media that reports nearly nothing of substance or any real issue with an intelligent unbiased presentation or any issue truly open for serious discussion.
Tabloidism is the façade of a new mantra for this era, underlying it is the guise and front to real journalism. Today’s talking heads masquerade as unbiased political pundits deciphering OBAMA SPEAK as if there were something profound in his rhetoric. Information, news, current events and especially political reporting CONTROLLED by the major mass media outlets has reached a new level. Regardless if it be a height or depth, it is nevertheless collaborating Orwellian thought control. Where Big Brother (Govt.) is clearly in bed with mass media machine and the corporate Globalist elite who own and control some 90 percent of the major news outlets in order to skew the public’s version of what is important in world and national affairs. This corporate / government Globalist media complex needs to present their take or perspective on world and national events while leaving little room for a true range of thoughts on these subjects.
The media simply and quickly dismisses alternate ideas, thoughts and perspectives with the arrogant and non-journalistic tag phrase: ”outside mainstream thought.” We are being served this plate of propaganda by the mass media complex for a reason, which is because the Global elite must control the media in order to control our system and us.
These gluttons would like to control everything and reshape the world as they choose. Do you really think we had a choice this election or the last or the one before that? Obama, McCain, Bush, Cheney, Gore the Clintons and many others are all just ponds of this elitist group. They control many of our politicians to various degrees. Understand this: they bet on both political sides. In other words, they have many horses in the race; thus, guaranteeing one of their horse’s wins; thereby insuring attention is eventually given to implementing their agenda.
The politicians that they back are permitted a wide range of personal political ideology for talking points and sound bites but only as long as it does not conflict with their goals and greater purpose. More often than not, these politicians say one thing and do another. Do you still think Bush was conservative? I mean think about it; runaway deficit spending, 100s of billions of dollars in foreign aid spending for aids in Africa and as hush money to corrupt dictators all around the planet and an open borders pro-amnesty for illegal immigration policy defiant of US immigration laws! Face it, Bush was or is a corporate socialist, a liar to public and betrayer to the true conservative cause he falsely cloaked himself with. He did not obey US laws and fulfils his obligation of protecting and defending the US constitution. Our laws, our constitution, our system and our liberty and freedoms are all being cleverly manipulated with the global elite’s agenda and plans in mind. These oligarchs control the mass media and favor the left-wingers like Obama the most because this philosophy is all about control and deprivation of liberty. Just look at any socialistic system from the current European states to Nazi Germany to the Old Soviet Union; these are just different degrees of command or manipulated economies.
The Democrats don’t want free markets to work and to fix itself. There is nothing in that for them and their party; thus, their thirst for power would go unfilled. Many Republicans are themselves either fraud conservatives like Bush are beholding to special interest concerns seeking their own self-promotion and perhaps even with corrupt doings and / or intent. Many shout out a political speak and philosophy long since withering a slow death needing revitalization if not a full-scale resurrection. However, its believers are seemingly incapable of bringing this to fruition due to lack of legitimate leadership within the Republican Party and a lack of genuine understanding by the public of the issues and problems faced by our country.
The mass media complex has in part facilitated this ignorance as has our educational system failed our succeeding generation due to a belief in a misguided liberal ideology now pervasive of many and I think probably most educators in our current American educational bureaucracy at all levels. These two systems most be overhauled and purged, as to once again, enable these institutions to serve us, the public, and our system correctly or else our country’s system shall fail us and fall from within due to this decay. Just as has all democracies and republics failed in the past, as did Rome and Athens.
When a champion of the truth and a real maverick of people makes an attempt to come forward by means of a grass roots movement outside the media mainstream. The media does not cover this phenomenon to any great extent as real journalistic news. Instead it is downplayed and shrugged off as a fluke and this campaigner labeled as a kook.
Remember the treatment received by Dr. Ron Paul during the primaries. Remember how his ideas were belittled, berated, dismissed, laughed at by the talking heads but were for the most part ignored and never discussed seriously. Now that the election is over a few pondents admit Ron Paul was not a kook but a visionary in what he said and believes. During this time he was the only candidate talking about our country’s pending financial woes, Congressional deficit spending problems, unhealthy governmental manipulation of the economy and the evils of the Federal Reserve System. Yet, today those in the media, who less than a year before berated and degraded him, now hail him as anything other than a kook and instead as a man of vision. Then, I ask, why not go to him and follow his advice? Apparently this makes too much sense for the national mainstream media. Instead the press turns to Obama and his insider advisers with their alternate motives of unannounced agendas as their compasses for where to place emphasis in their economic plans. There is no discussion as to their economic philosophy or why they think there actions are good and just or even why this idea of theirs is supposedly so much better than so many others ideas all of which are never presented to the public for consideration and thought.
Now that the media’s pick, Obama, has won and it is all over for the smartest man in Congress. He, Congressman Paul, is now suddenly seen as just that and no longer a weirdo eccentric. Yet Congressmen Paul’s ideas still get next to no real coverage because his ideas are not the ideas likened by the media complex or are they the ideas fitting the agenda of the Global elite.
Our country has real serious problems but none more so than the concentration of the ownership of our national mainstream media outlets with the express intent for the manipulation of free information by this media with a predisposition and self-selective rationale which serves the agenda of a certain set of the world’s elite. Let us pray that some day we shall win back our republic from the secret oligarchical control we our now under.
God help us,
David Douglas