Open letter accuses BBC board member of having a conflict of interest on Gaza

This goes on all over western media not only the bbc.

You're not the only one ...

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly3zr8p46eo

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-15/nsw-antisemitism-crim...

Fake terror plots became criminal currency for a while in Australia.

Which part was antisemitic and which part was the conspiracy? The ownership is factual.

Western propaganda lies not only about this, corruption in the EU reaches incredible proportions, censorship, violations of freedom of speech, but Putin is always to blame.

What are the 'facts' about ownership "all over western media"?

It could be because your comment is too vague, personally I don't understand what you mean. Who are the ownership/leadership of media companies?

I can see how it’s read that way but people really do seem to forget that billionaires buy media companies as an investment. It’s not a strictly financial investment, either; they get to shape public opinion with them.

How many people know that Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post? How many people know that MSNBC is owned by Comcast? How many people know that Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and The New York Post are all owned by Rupert Murdoch? How many UK citizens know that he also owns Sky News and The Times of London? How many people have heard the name Rupert Murdoch? (Everybody knows Elon Musk owns Twitter. Why do people say he bought an election again? How did that happen?)

They have a point and it is not anti-Semitic. The people who own the means to shape public opinion are exclusively in the billionaire class.

I saw this in a comment here recently and thought it was informative about this topic:

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-dec-19-oe-stein...

Why would Bezos / Washington Post be an example of pro-Israel bias?

Well, it's not. It's an example of a billionaire-owned media company.

Nobody here even mentioned Putin, and you conspicuously didn't cite additional sources for your imperative claims. It's not just baseless, it's also a non-sequitur in the context of the article.

You sound like a deeply insecure and paranoid individual, perhaps distancing yourself from politics would be healthy?

the one that insults the other first loses the argument.

Quite the opposite. The last person to present credible evidence is often the only person telling the truth.

If you can forever prove the West wrong, don't keep us waiting.

The thread topic is News media, not Hollywood.

Global news media is dominated by Rupert Murdoch (not Jewish) and while the second tier lesser Murdochs are mostly rich billionaires not many are Jewish.

eg: Arthur Sulzberger Jr. (recent chair of The New York Times company) is neither Jewish by birth—according to traditional Jewish law—nor by choice. (He was raised Episcopalian, his mother’s faith.)

could be but you brought no new information besides a low level personal insult so the person you insulted added more to the discussion than you

They would have, if they remembered to cite their sources. Because they didn't, their original comment stands as logical fallacy, ad-hominem.

You're welcome to correct their error.

News media isn't separate from Hollywood. Disney owns ABC. Paramount Global owns CBS. CNN is owned by Warner Bros Discovery. NBC Universal owns NBC, MSNBC, and Telemundo; they also own Universal Pictures. All the major US news networks are owned by companies that also own Hollywood studios, except for Fox, which sold its studio to Disney recently.

Murdoch (owner of Fox, Sky, NY Post, and WSJ, among others) gets a lot of (negative) attention as a dissenting voice, but I'd hardly say he dominates news media.

And couldn't you find a better second example than someone who is only technically not Jewish, because his father is Jewish, not his mother? His father, grandfather, and great-grandfather (all Jewish) previously ran the NY Times.

> Because they didn't, their original comment stands as logical fallacy, ad-hominem.

I do not want to make the same mistake as you, turning discussions into personal attacks (aka ad-hominem), but you were the only one using ad-hominem in this discussion, if you felt attacked because OP said that western leaders use Putin as a scapegoat, I think that is totally on you.

Okay. I'm still waiting for a substantiation of the original claim, either from you or the OP.

You'll be waiting a really long time :D