The real message from voters was "Fix this stinking economy." But Republicans have no intention of doing so.
With Republicans in control of the House, forget spending increases or tax cuts to stimulate the economy.
Republicans don't believe in stimulating economies. They think markets eventually clear -- once the pain is sufficient. Or in the immortal words of Herbert Hoover's treasury secretary, millionaire industrialist Andrew Mellon: "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmer, liquidate real estate. It will purge the rottenness out of the system. People will work harder, lead a more moral life."
Of course, Mellon was dead wrong. Nothing was purged. Instead, the economy sunk into deeper and deeper depression.
So how do we get out of this bog?
By default, all the responsibility is on the Federal Reserve -- which announced this week it will pump $600 billion into the economy between now and June to reduce long-term interest rates ("quantitative easing" in Fed-speak).
The Fed thinks lower long-term rates will (1) push more businesses to expand capacity and hire workers; (2) push the dollar downward and make American exports more competitive and therefore generate more jobs; and (3) allow more Americans to refinance their homes at low rates, thereby giving them more cash to spend and thereby stimulate more jobs.
But without an expansionary fiscal policy, the Fed's goals are pipe dreams.
Lower rates won't spur businesses to expand capacity and jobs because there aren't enough consumers to buy additional goods and services.
Lower rates won't push down the dollar and spur more exports. They'll only spur more competitive devaluations by other nations determined not to lose export shares and jobs.
And lower rates won't allow middle-class and working-class Americans to refinance their homes because banks won't lend to families whose incomes have dropped, whose debts have risen, or who owe more on their homes than the homes are worth. That is, most of us.
Without an expansive fiscal policy that puts more money into the pockets of consumers and gets them out from under their huge debt load, the Fed's billions will just fuel another stock-market bubble.
It's already started. Stocks are up even though the rest of the economy is still down because money is already so cheap. Bondholders who can't get much of any return from their loans are shifting into stocks. Companies are buying back more shares of their own stock. And Wall Street is making more bets in the stock market with money it can borrow at almost zero percent interest.
In other words, with Republicans in charge of the House, the economy remains anemic. It may even succumb to another bubble that bursts.
Could it be that Republicans want to keep the economy this way through Election Day, 2012?
Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.
I first met my friend David Neubert in the context of a website he co-founded, called The Panelist, devoted to “responsible and ethical investment advice”. Dave’s moved on to other things now, but he still has opinions on the ethical-investment front. If you refuse to buy stock in unethical companies, he says, you lose diversification. Instead, Neubert looks to change the behavior of companies he’s invested in:
I exercise my ethics through shareholder activism–by supporting, or rejecting, shareholder resolutions with my vote. I like to think of this practice as socially conscious investing…
You have more power than you might think. For example, I own 2,600 shares of Valero Energy, which means my vote amounts to 1/220,000 of the company. Maybe that doesn’t sound like a lot, but compare that to my vote for president of the United States (1/130,000,000 voters); or even mayor of New York (1/4,000,000 voters).
And believe it or not, your shareholder vote may very well make a greater difference than the votes of institutional investors. Most company boards realize that individual investors tend to be more enduring in their views and a whole lot more loyal, making them more desirable shareholders than fickle institutions. If an individual voices an opinion at a shareholder meeting or writes a letter, corporations recognize that there are likely thousands of others just like them and they listen.
I don’t buy it. For one thing, using the vote as a comparison is setting the bar unbelievably low, since voting is statistically certain to make no difference at all:
Even for the most passionate partisan, it’s hard to argue that voting is a good use of your time. Instead of waiting in line to vote, you could wait in line to buy a lottery ticket, hoping to win $100 million and use it to advance your causes—and all with an almost indescribably greater chance of success than you’d have in the voting booth.
And what of Valero, a dirty oil refiner? Is it likely to listen to small shareholders like Neubert? Well, Valero has spent $4 million of its shareholders’ money in support of Proposition 23, which would void California’s 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act. Shareholders like the Unitarian Universalist Association are opposed to that spending, for good reason: the act is a good one and Valero is essentially lobbying for the right to profit from pollution, even after a law banning such activity has been passed.
Here’s how the LA Times reported the shareholder move:
The challenge was dismissed by officials at Valero, which has contributed $4 million to the Proposition 23 campaign. Like the other resolutions, the one offered to Valero’s board comes from a relatively minor shareholder: the Unitarian church…
The filers are a “stockholder activist group,” said Valero spokesman Bill Day in describing the Unitarian Universalist Assn. of Congregations…
The resolutions’ backers acknowledge that they are unlikely to have an immediate effect on campaign spending by oil companies.
The Unitarians have about $15,000 of stock in Valero; Neubert has about $46,000. Clearly, these sums are dwarfed by Valero’s donations to the Prop 23 campaign and equally clearly Valero has made its mind up that theses people are gadflies who should probably just be ignored.
The fact is that Neubert and people like him are not going to change Valero’s behavior. And the diversification benefits of owning Valero stock have never been lower, in these days of ultra-high stock market correlation.
If you consider yourself an ethical investor and you care about global warming, then it’s really hard to justify an investment in Valero, a company which is spending millions of dollars trying to repeal one of the few U.S. laws which takes global warming seriously. Certainly the diversification benefits of owning Valero stock aren’t in themselves sufficient to offset the fact that you, as a shareholder, are ultimately responsible for Valero’s expenditures on the Prop 23 campaign.
Ethical investing can and must go further than the simple obligation which all shareholders have to take their ownership stakes seriously and to vote on shareholder resolutions. It’s all well and good being conscious of the fact that your company is behaving unethically — but once you come to that conclusion, the ethical thing to do is to sell those shares. Otherwise, you bear 1/220,000 of the responsibility for precisely that unethical behavior. Dave Neubert has, in effect, spent $18 in support of Prop 23. What has he done to offset that expenditure?
eric seiger
Keith Olbermann suspended after donating to Democrats - Simmi <b>...</b>
Olbermann has been suspending indefinitely after violating NBC's ethics policies.
<b>News</b> Corp. Social Games Unit Buys Making Fun | Peter Kafka <b>...</b>
Most of the big media companies have big stakes in digital games, except News Corp. But Rupert Murdoch's company is trying to catch up--without spending a lot of money.
Fox <b>News</b> Ratings on Election Night Beat Networks - NYTimes.com
The Fox News Channel's midterm election coverage attracted more viewers than any of the broadcast networks' coverage, according to the Nielsen Company.
eric seiger
The real message from voters was "Fix this stinking economy." But Republicans have no intention of doing so.
With Republicans in control of the House, forget spending increases or tax cuts to stimulate the economy.
Republicans don't believe in stimulating economies. They think markets eventually clear -- once the pain is sufficient. Or in the immortal words of Herbert Hoover's treasury secretary, millionaire industrialist Andrew Mellon: "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmer, liquidate real estate. It will purge the rottenness out of the system. People will work harder, lead a more moral life."
Of course, Mellon was dead wrong. Nothing was purged. Instead, the economy sunk into deeper and deeper depression.
So how do we get out of this bog?
By default, all the responsibility is on the Federal Reserve -- which announced this week it will pump $600 billion into the economy between now and June to reduce long-term interest rates ("quantitative easing" in Fed-speak).
The Fed thinks lower long-term rates will (1) push more businesses to expand capacity and hire workers; (2) push the dollar downward and make American exports more competitive and therefore generate more jobs; and (3) allow more Americans to refinance their homes at low rates, thereby giving them more cash to spend and thereby stimulate more jobs.
But without an expansionary fiscal policy, the Fed's goals are pipe dreams.
Lower rates won't spur businesses to expand capacity and jobs because there aren't enough consumers to buy additional goods and services.
Lower rates won't push down the dollar and spur more exports. They'll only spur more competitive devaluations by other nations determined not to lose export shares and jobs.
And lower rates won't allow middle-class and working-class Americans to refinance their homes because banks won't lend to families whose incomes have dropped, whose debts have risen, or who owe more on their homes than the homes are worth. That is, most of us.
Without an expansive fiscal policy that puts more money into the pockets of consumers and gets them out from under their huge debt load, the Fed's billions will just fuel another stock-market bubble.
It's already started. Stocks are up even though the rest of the economy is still down because money is already so cheap. Bondholders who can't get much of any return from their loans are shifting into stocks. Companies are buying back more shares of their own stock. And Wall Street is making more bets in the stock market with money it can borrow at almost zero percent interest.
In other words, with Republicans in charge of the House, the economy remains anemic. It may even succumb to another bubble that bursts.
Could it be that Republicans want to keep the economy this way through Election Day, 2012?
Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.
I first met my friend David Neubert in the context of a website he co-founded, called The Panelist, devoted to “responsible and ethical investment advice”. Dave’s moved on to other things now, but he still has opinions on the ethical-investment front. If you refuse to buy stock in unethical companies, he says, you lose diversification. Instead, Neubert looks to change the behavior of companies he’s invested in:
I exercise my ethics through shareholder activism–by supporting, or rejecting, shareholder resolutions with my vote. I like to think of this practice as socially conscious investing…
You have more power than you might think. For example, I own 2,600 shares of Valero Energy, which means my vote amounts to 1/220,000 of the company. Maybe that doesn’t sound like a lot, but compare that to my vote for president of the United States (1/130,000,000 voters); or even mayor of New York (1/4,000,000 voters).
And believe it or not, your shareholder vote may very well make a greater difference than the votes of institutional investors. Most company boards realize that individual investors tend to be more enduring in their views and a whole lot more loyal, making them more desirable shareholders than fickle institutions. If an individual voices an opinion at a shareholder meeting or writes a letter, corporations recognize that there are likely thousands of others just like them and they listen.
I don’t buy it. For one thing, using the vote as a comparison is setting the bar unbelievably low, since voting is statistically certain to make no difference at all:
Even for the most passionate partisan, it’s hard to argue that voting is a good use of your time. Instead of waiting in line to vote, you could wait in line to buy a lottery ticket, hoping to win $100 million and use it to advance your causes—and all with an almost indescribably greater chance of success than you’d have in the voting booth.
And what of Valero, a dirty oil refiner? Is it likely to listen to small shareholders like Neubert? Well, Valero has spent $4 million of its shareholders’ money in support of Proposition 23, which would void California’s 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act. Shareholders like the Unitarian Universalist Association are opposed to that spending, for good reason: the act is a good one and Valero is essentially lobbying for the right to profit from pollution, even after a law banning such activity has been passed.
Here’s how the LA Times reported the shareholder move:
The challenge was dismissed by officials at Valero, which has contributed $4 million to the Proposition 23 campaign. Like the other resolutions, the one offered to Valero’s board comes from a relatively minor shareholder: the Unitarian church…
The filers are a “stockholder activist group,” said Valero spokesman Bill Day in describing the Unitarian Universalist Assn. of Congregations…
The resolutions’ backers acknowledge that they are unlikely to have an immediate effect on campaign spending by oil companies.
The Unitarians have about $15,000 of stock in Valero; Neubert has about $46,000. Clearly, these sums are dwarfed by Valero’s donations to the Prop 23 campaign and equally clearly Valero has made its mind up that theses people are gadflies who should probably just be ignored.
The fact is that Neubert and people like him are not going to change Valero’s behavior. And the diversification benefits of owning Valero stock have never been lower, in these days of ultra-high stock market correlation.
If you consider yourself an ethical investor and you care about global warming, then it’s really hard to justify an investment in Valero, a company which is spending millions of dollars trying to repeal one of the few U.S. laws which takes global warming seriously. Certainly the diversification benefits of owning Valero stock aren’t in themselves sufficient to offset the fact that you, as a shareholder, are ultimately responsible for Valero’s expenditures on the Prop 23 campaign.
Ethical investing can and must go further than the simple obligation which all shareholders have to take their ownership stakes seriously and to vote on shareholder resolutions. It’s all well and good being conscious of the fact that your company is behaving unethically — but once you come to that conclusion, the ethical thing to do is to sell those shares. Otherwise, you bear 1/220,000 of the responsibility for precisely that unethical behavior. Dave Neubert has, in effect, spent $18 in support of Prop 23. What has he done to offset that expenditure?
eric seiger
Keith Olbermann suspended after donating to Democrats - Simmi <b>...</b>
Olbermann has been suspending indefinitely after violating NBC's ethics policies.
<b>News</b> Corp. Social Games Unit Buys Making Fun | Peter Kafka <b>...</b>
Most of the big media companies have big stakes in digital games, except News Corp. But Rupert Murdoch's company is trying to catch up--without spending a lot of money.
Fox <b>News</b> Ratings on Election Night Beat Networks - NYTimes.com
The Fox News Channel's midterm election coverage attracted more viewers than any of the broadcast networks' coverage, according to the Nielsen Company.
eric seiger
eric seiger
eric seiger
Keith Olbermann suspended after donating to Democrats - Simmi <b>...</b>
Olbermann has been suspending indefinitely after violating NBC's ethics policies.
<b>News</b> Corp. Social Games Unit Buys Making Fun | Peter Kafka <b>...</b>
Most of the big media companies have big stakes in digital games, except News Corp. But Rupert Murdoch's company is trying to catch up--without spending a lot of money.
Fox <b>News</b> Ratings on Election Night Beat Networks - NYTimes.com
The Fox News Channel's midterm election coverage attracted more viewers than any of the broadcast networks' coverage, according to the Nielsen Company.
eric seiger
The real message from voters was "Fix this stinking economy." But Republicans have no intention of doing so.
With Republicans in control of the House, forget spending increases or tax cuts to stimulate the economy.
Republicans don't believe in stimulating economies. They think markets eventually clear -- once the pain is sufficient. Or in the immortal words of Herbert Hoover's treasury secretary, millionaire industrialist Andrew Mellon: "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmer, liquidate real estate. It will purge the rottenness out of the system. People will work harder, lead a more moral life."
Of course, Mellon was dead wrong. Nothing was purged. Instead, the economy sunk into deeper and deeper depression.
So how do we get out of this bog?
By default, all the responsibility is on the Federal Reserve -- which announced this week it will pump $600 billion into the economy between now and June to reduce long-term interest rates ("quantitative easing" in Fed-speak).
The Fed thinks lower long-term rates will (1) push more businesses to expand capacity and hire workers; (2) push the dollar downward and make American exports more competitive and therefore generate more jobs; and (3) allow more Americans to refinance their homes at low rates, thereby giving them more cash to spend and thereby stimulate more jobs.
But without an expansionary fiscal policy, the Fed's goals are pipe dreams.
Lower rates won't spur businesses to expand capacity and jobs because there aren't enough consumers to buy additional goods and services.
Lower rates won't push down the dollar and spur more exports. They'll only spur more competitive devaluations by other nations determined not to lose export shares and jobs.
And lower rates won't allow middle-class and working-class Americans to refinance their homes because banks won't lend to families whose incomes have dropped, whose debts have risen, or who owe more on their homes than the homes are worth. That is, most of us.
Without an expansive fiscal policy that puts more money into the pockets of consumers and gets them out from under their huge debt load, the Fed's billions will just fuel another stock-market bubble.
It's already started. Stocks are up even though the rest of the economy is still down because money is already so cheap. Bondholders who can't get much of any return from their loans are shifting into stocks. Companies are buying back more shares of their own stock. And Wall Street is making more bets in the stock market with money it can borrow at almost zero percent interest.
In other words, with Republicans in charge of the House, the economy remains anemic. It may even succumb to another bubble that bursts.
Could it be that Republicans want to keep the economy this way through Election Day, 2012?
Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.
I first met my friend David Neubert in the context of a website he co-founded, called The Panelist, devoted to “responsible and ethical investment advice”. Dave’s moved on to other things now, but he still has opinions on the ethical-investment front. If you refuse to buy stock in unethical companies, he says, you lose diversification. Instead, Neubert looks to change the behavior of companies he’s invested in:
I exercise my ethics through shareholder activism–by supporting, or rejecting, shareholder resolutions with my vote. I like to think of this practice as socially conscious investing…
You have more power than you might think. For example, I own 2,600 shares of Valero Energy, which means my vote amounts to 1/220,000 of the company. Maybe that doesn’t sound like a lot, but compare that to my vote for president of the United States (1/130,000,000 voters); or even mayor of New York (1/4,000,000 voters).
And believe it or not, your shareholder vote may very well make a greater difference than the votes of institutional investors. Most company boards realize that individual investors tend to be more enduring in their views and a whole lot more loyal, making them more desirable shareholders than fickle institutions. If an individual voices an opinion at a shareholder meeting or writes a letter, corporations recognize that there are likely thousands of others just like them and they listen.
I don’t buy it. For one thing, using the vote as a comparison is setting the bar unbelievably low, since voting is statistically certain to make no difference at all:
Even for the most passionate partisan, it’s hard to argue that voting is a good use of your time. Instead of waiting in line to vote, you could wait in line to buy a lottery ticket, hoping to win $100 million and use it to advance your causes—and all with an almost indescribably greater chance of success than you’d have in the voting booth.
And what of Valero, a dirty oil refiner? Is it likely to listen to small shareholders like Neubert? Well, Valero has spent $4 million of its shareholders’ money in support of Proposition 23, which would void California’s 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act. Shareholders like the Unitarian Universalist Association are opposed to that spending, for good reason: the act is a good one and Valero is essentially lobbying for the right to profit from pollution, even after a law banning such activity has been passed.
Here’s how the LA Times reported the shareholder move:
The challenge was dismissed by officials at Valero, which has contributed $4 million to the Proposition 23 campaign. Like the other resolutions, the one offered to Valero’s board comes from a relatively minor shareholder: the Unitarian church…
The filers are a “stockholder activist group,” said Valero spokesman Bill Day in describing the Unitarian Universalist Assn. of Congregations…
The resolutions’ backers acknowledge that they are unlikely to have an immediate effect on campaign spending by oil companies.
The Unitarians have about $15,000 of stock in Valero; Neubert has about $46,000. Clearly, these sums are dwarfed by Valero’s donations to the Prop 23 campaign and equally clearly Valero has made its mind up that theses people are gadflies who should probably just be ignored.
The fact is that Neubert and people like him are not going to change Valero’s behavior. And the diversification benefits of owning Valero stock have never been lower, in these days of ultra-high stock market correlation.
If you consider yourself an ethical investor and you care about global warming, then it’s really hard to justify an investment in Valero, a company which is spending millions of dollars trying to repeal one of the few U.S. laws which takes global warming seriously. Certainly the diversification benefits of owning Valero stock aren’t in themselves sufficient to offset the fact that you, as a shareholder, are ultimately responsible for Valero’s expenditures on the Prop 23 campaign.
Ethical investing can and must go further than the simple obligation which all shareholders have to take their ownership stakes seriously and to vote on shareholder resolutions. It’s all well and good being conscious of the fact that your company is behaving unethically — but once you come to that conclusion, the ethical thing to do is to sell those shares. Otherwise, you bear 1/220,000 of the responsibility for precisely that unethical behavior. Dave Neubert has, in effect, spent $18 in support of Prop 23. What has he done to offset that expenditure?
eric seiger
eric seiger
Keith Olbermann suspended after donating to Democrats - Simmi <b>...</b>
Olbermann has been suspending indefinitely after violating NBC's ethics policies.
<b>News</b> Corp. Social Games Unit Buys Making Fun | Peter Kafka <b>...</b>
Most of the big media companies have big stakes in digital games, except News Corp. But Rupert Murdoch's company is trying to catch up--without spending a lot of money.
Fox <b>News</b> Ratings on Election Night Beat Networks - NYTimes.com
The Fox News Channel's midterm election coverage attracted more viewers than any of the broadcast networks' coverage, according to the Nielsen Company.
eric seiger
eric seiger
Keith Olbermann suspended after donating to Democrats - Simmi <b>...</b>
Olbermann has been suspending indefinitely after violating NBC's ethics policies.
<b>News</b> Corp. Social Games Unit Buys Making Fun | Peter Kafka <b>...</b>
Most of the big media companies have big stakes in digital games, except News Corp. But Rupert Murdoch's company is trying to catch up--without spending a lot of money.
Fox <b>News</b> Ratings on Election Night Beat Networks - NYTimes.com
The Fox News Channel's midterm election coverage attracted more viewers than any of the broadcast networks' coverage, according to the Nielsen Company.
eric seiger
Keith Olbermann suspended after donating to Democrats - Simmi <b>...</b>
Olbermann has been suspending indefinitely after violating NBC's ethics policies.
<b>News</b> Corp. Social Games Unit Buys Making Fun | Peter Kafka <b>...</b>
Most of the big media companies have big stakes in digital games, except News Corp. But Rupert Murdoch's company is trying to catch up--without spending a lot of money.
Fox <b>News</b> Ratings on Election Night Beat Networks - NYTimes.com
The Fox News Channel's midterm election coverage attracted more viewers than any of the broadcast networks' coverage, according to the Nielsen Company.
eric seiger
Keith Olbermann suspended after donating to Democrats - Simmi <b>...</b>
Olbermann has been suspending indefinitely after violating NBC's ethics policies.
<b>News</b> Corp. Social Games Unit Buys Making Fun | Peter Kafka <b>...</b>
Most of the big media companies have big stakes in digital games, except News Corp. But Rupert Murdoch's company is trying to catch up--without spending a lot of money.
Fox <b>News</b> Ratings on Election Night Beat Networks - NYTimes.com
The Fox News Channel's midterm election coverage attracted more viewers than any of the broadcast networks' coverage, according to the Nielsen Company.
eric seiger eric seiger
eric seiger
eric seiger
eric seiger
Keith Olbermann suspended after donating to Democrats - Simmi <b>...</b>
Olbermann has been suspending indefinitely after violating NBC's ethics policies.
<b>News</b> Corp. Social Games Unit Buys Making Fun | Peter Kafka <b>...</b>
Most of the big media companies have big stakes in digital games, except News Corp. But Rupert Murdoch's company is trying to catch up--without spending a lot of money.
Fox <b>News</b> Ratings on Election Night Beat Networks - NYTimes.com
The Fox News Channel's midterm election coverage attracted more viewers than any of the broadcast networks' coverage, according to the Nielsen Company.
big seminar 14
My husband and I are moving into a larger apartment soon, and we've discovered that we need a little extra in our savings account. I can't substitute teach until August, and so far, my part time job search hasn't panned out. I don't want to take out a loan from a bank, and I'm too proud to ask my parents for any sort of substantial loan, which leaves my options limited.
With all of these things in mind, I began searching for legitimate ways to make money online a few weeks ago.
I'm not alone. With today's economy, more and more people are looking for ways to bring in a little extra income. There are a lot of scams out there, and unfortunately, some people are all too eager to take your money and run.
In this article, I hope to help you learn a few ways to make money online without getting scammed. I have personally used all of these methods, but by all means, get the opinions of others before you dive into anything.
First, I'm going to clear up a big misconception:
You won't get rich with any of these methods. You'll make a few extra dollars, maybe even enough to pay a bill, but if you're looking to retire early, you'll have to spend money and a lot of time building a business or website.
My favorite method of making money online is writing. Associated Content is a great site and it isn't the only one out there, but be warned--just like on AC, plagarism is not tolerated on any site. Always write original material.
Paid survey taking has been around forever and are a good way to earn a few dollars. Be wary of any site that demands up front payment for "invitation only" surveys. A legitimate company will not make you pay anything to join. On survey sites, you're basically paid for your time. If a survey takes 5 minutes to complete, you might be paid $2. If a survey takes 45 minutes, you might be paid $10.
The Amazon Mechanical Turk is a way to make money and help people. Companies create an account, then post simple jobs. It could be anything from a survey to classifying websites. At $0.1 and up, Mechanical Turk does not pay very well, but it's the least time consuming method I have found of making money online.
A lot has been made of the "get paid to surf the web" sites, but since the dot com bubble burst in the late 1990s, these are barely worth looking at. There are some legitimate sites still left, but they pay at best $0.60 per hour, and you're limited to a certain number of hours per month.
A final option is called cyber begging. It's exactly what it sounds like--you put up a post at a website, asking complete strangers for donations to your PayPal account. Again, avoid the sites that demand membership payment. If you get lucky and do recieve a few donations, please pay it forward and anonymously donate to someone else in need.
I hope that I've helped you, and good luck! You won't get rich, but maybe some of these methods will help ease the financial burden.
eric seiger
Keith Olbermann suspended after donating to Democrats - Simmi <b>...</b>
Olbermann has been suspending indefinitely after violating NBC's ethics policies.
<b>News</b> Corp. Social Games Unit Buys Making Fun | Peter Kafka <b>...</b>
Most of the big media companies have big stakes in digital games, except News Corp. But Rupert Murdoch's company is trying to catch up--without spending a lot of money.
Fox <b>News</b> Ratings on Election Night Beat Networks - NYTimes.com
The Fox News Channel's midterm election coverage attracted more viewers than any of the broadcast networks' coverage, according to the Nielsen Company.
eric seiger
Keith Olbermann suspended after donating to Democrats - Simmi <b>...</b>
Olbermann has been suspending indefinitely after violating NBC's ethics policies.
<b>News</b> Corp. Social Games Unit Buys Making Fun | Peter Kafka <b>...</b>
Most of the big media companies have big stakes in digital games, except News Corp. But Rupert Murdoch's company is trying to catch up--without spending a lot of money.
Fox <b>News</b> Ratings on Election Night Beat Networks - NYTimes.com
The Fox News Channel's midterm election coverage attracted more viewers than any of the broadcast networks' coverage, according to the Nielsen Company.
eric seiger
No comments:
Post a Comment