Blogger’s note: I wrote this post in sections some of which are marked by repetition of the post title.  Writing in sections is a function of the technology (laptop field of view is limited; I don’t write from home, etc.). As ever, I tend to add to the top, not the bottom, of any post.  Here, you’ll see the above title twice more mid-way and a fourth time at the bottom simply as a quick way to go back to the top.  Thought content within each section probably holds together more tightly than the order of sections.

About half (the top half of) the material is new. The newer part is more spontaneous and broad-view summaries, but also has specific details of interest on two media platforms from one current events story line out of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

[1]

(As published):The ongoing racist and sexist legacy of PRWORA, ‘Moynihan’ and, for example, The Ford Foundation [published Dec 14, 2017].  … in full,  [it would be:]

[2]

It’s Show-and-Tell time, we’ll start with the “Ford Foundation’s influence in sponsoring the Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative” ….

THAT (Feb. 2018) page’s Title and shortlink. The page is important enough to this blog to have its own place on my top right side-bar widget (see image).

(Image added to this page, Nov. 5, 2019, however it’s been on the sidebar (though without the short-link, which I’m adding now)  for a long time)…//LGH

Consolidated Control of DV Advocacy by Feminist Leadership Refusing to Identify, by Name and Financing, The Opposition Entities. Subtitle: Personal Relevance to a Post-DV-Intervention, Unprosecuted, Child-Stealing Event by Ex-Batterer case in the SF Bay Area. [a PAGE, Publ. Feb. 2, 2018]: (Case-sensitive shortlink (all parts of it) ends “/PsBXH-8rg”). note:  post protocol is lower-case “p” in “psBXH” but Page is upper-case, “P” in “PsBXH.”  (The characters PsBXH or psBXH probably (both) represent this specific blog).

Its parent page and shortlink** is my blog “Front Page”: LGH Top Picks, Themes, Tables of Contents, and Why My Gravatar is a Blue Jay taking Flight. (New Jan. 11, 2018). (short-link ends “/PsBXH-8o0″ (Last character is a zero), however, if you simply type in “FamilyCourtMatters.org” it’s pretty hard to miss). …

My “Opening Spiels” have long sentences, generally a complaining attitude, very few links, truckloads of declarative statements, and, essentially, air dirty laundry list for existing garden-variety “Family Court  Domestic violence / Child Protection” reforms (as seen on-line) or, if you wish, my dream list of what I wish would become common knowledge.

File this “Opening Spiel” under “Opinion,” but below that are the links and the backups not opinion, but fact.  The transplanted material represents a lot of work and time spent on specific drill-downs, I believe still in the public interest. It was done February 2018, about a half-year before I had to flee the state of California (as an elder) dealing with the “family violence” part of the (decade-long) aftermath of family court destruction, the aftermath of a violent marriage in another decade.

If I could figure this out as a basic fugitive (not from the law, but from certain lawless individuals and situations they’d engineered, as these things go, for personal profit and basic ill-will), then why couldn’t/wouldn’t more people PAID to investigate major social problems and able to put their own name as freelance reporters (or staffers)?  Would it sabotage their careers, or cost future freelance gigs  to tell more of the truth about these things?

Perhaps (my more broad-based, diligent) approach and sharing it systematically year after year isn’t flashy or overtly dramatic enough, doesn’t generate notoriety and with it, a reputation. Maybe they just don’t find it interesting or colorful enough. Maybe that type of truth has too little (easily marketable) “hope” attached to it. To be honest, I don’t really know.

To understand how relevant ANY cause-based reporting is to the larger picture, you need to get a grasp of that larger picture, which I’d characterize (generally) as public/private policy making based on the (false) “scarcity theory” of government budgets and deficits. (“A Budget is not a Balance Sheet”)

The main point is getting to the understanding as a basis for reform — not just “I’m pissed off, I was hurt, others were hurt, I hate what exists now: impeach (or recall) Judge A,B,C or D” which are personal, and often valid basis for WANTING reform — but not a foundation for it.

If that  (type of) post, language, tweet, link, cause, petition, or headline worth is propagating, it’s worth knowing who or what sponsored it.  When you don’t know, admit you don’t know and (for a change!), start looking it up and building personal, cumulative knowledge about the media behind the latest causes.

Be patient, keep working at it, and be diligent — or be easily manipulated/socially-engineered (essentially, brainwashed).

How hard, really, in reading on-line an article in a publication, to look closely at the framework of the web-page, to follow through on the “About” page, or fine print at the bottom, and figure out if it’s for-profit or not-for profit, what’s the home country (and if USA, in which state), and especially if it was a nonprofit, when did it start up, and with whose backing?

Beyond that, I continue to sense people in the field of my particular interest (see this blog!), continue to talk as though mainstream media attention to ANY family court fiasco (“if it bleeds — or is a parent or child missing in action — it leads”) — ANY mainstream media attention — is good, when in fact, in the long run, it’s not.

That type of journalism isn’t built around systemic education on what, really, ARE the family courts [as opposed to practices within them or regulations/legislations regarding them] or, for that matter, what, by definition, is government, or what is a nonprofit “organization” [#1: it’s a PRIVATE entity], where do you look up government grants to nonprofits (or other government entities, or private for-profit ones), or access their tax returns and independently financial statements (i.e., their statements to government authorities), and what can you learn from them?

How many nonprofits are there? What are their collective holdings any given year?  Or, take a few ones of interest — what are its collective holdings over time, and its filing habits (compliant or non-compliant; on-time or always late?)

Does mainstream journalism EVER educate or feature that? Of the many websites owned or run by nonprofits, do they?  

Of the huge resources of (again, my example is thinking of the US federal government)  government websites, usually featuring separate executive bran ch departments, EVER educate on or feature that?  Does “Justice.gov” [USDOJ] cough up its grants (let alone contracts) database?  DOES most of HHS.gov [USDHHS] even mention the existence of TAGGS.HHS.gov, for all the publicity, explanations and promotions throughout? Or the

Departments of Education, Labor, and others?

[No.]

But you can self-educate if you have time and access to the internet, which (judging by the activity on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn (etc.) and many privately-run blogs, plenty of people have…)

…Let alone what is a government entity, how many government entities are there any given year [USA:  Well over 100,000. Did you know that School Districts are government entities (special-purpose ones)], how do they relate to each other, where do you look up government entity independently audited comprehensive annual financial statements (sometimes called “CAFRs”),  and what can you learn from them?

It’s built around sound-bites (“bytes”?), the next elections (typically), and sales.

This neglects an area of real power that average people have — if they’d only use it — the power to resist propaganda, brainwashing, and insist on being told ALL the relevant truth by being told where it comes from, and to exercise, after due-diligence drill-downs — the power of choice — including choice to focus on something other than whats being shoved down our throats (figuratively) for daily consumption and “intellectual” nourishment.

Post Title: Major Transform/Reform Campaigns [Regardless of Cause] Involve Branded, On-line Media Platforms. Keep an Eye on Who owns which Brands & Platforms: Do Periodic Drill-downs.. [Publ. Feb. 12, 2020, FROM my Feb. 2018 ‘Consolidated Control of DV Advocacy’  Page]. (shortlink ends “-c9y)

This post is a quick one setting the stage for one with more current points of reference which I believe helps illustrate what ANYONE can find by doing just a few (or a few hours worth of) background checks when articles of interest to their particular cause (family court reform, domestic violence prevention, child welfare issues, pending legislation to change or improve decisionmaking in the family courts, — you name the cause, media platforms WILL be involved, and often paid consultants and PR professionals.  It’s no longer sensible to play “Deaf, Dumb, AND Blind” to the present reality — billionaires can afford to go out and buy, then later sell, multi-media platforms, and they have been doing this for centuries — and no less so in the last fifty years.

With the ongoing profit motive of media owners (like any business), how would it make any sense to voluntarily build awareness among “the masses” of just who owns which brands, how private is their control, and who is behind major progressive and conservative political movement tax-exempts?

An educated on “how this fits together” (what’s the bottom line?) on how government and private groups interact populace isn’t really good for the corporate bottom lines; it is, however, good for US (those “masses”) forced to both live in  and finance the institutions, public/private housing-schools (preK-12 & public universities)-roads-bridges-prisons-law-enforcement-courts-justice systems-financial institutions (etc.) socioeconomic infrastructures designed by the same.

(USA: federal income-tax-exempt statuses with the IRS include 501©3s (charities, contributions tax-deductible), 501©4 (Political action-permitted, contributions not tax-deductible), how often the same or nearly the same people own both and organizations just move funds from one type to another.  OR, move funds to organizations which never existed [that’s illegal/fraud], or only existed “flash-in-the-pan,” [borderline legal] and in general setting conditions to facilitate this type of illicit activity.

(1) shortens a key page I want to make more accessible by removing the section specific to a footnote drill-down on two major media platforms (Guardian.com, and Thoughtco.com) I quoted for their timelines —  and while at it, another media platform (CMP Media, which sale in the late 1990s led me to UBM Media) I’d previously researched, and blogged herein as part of a drill-down on resulting nonprofits formed by a specific family from that wealth acquired from that sale,

(2) reminds readers and reviews for them [by re-posting some of the content] that within the USA that  the historic context FROM THE START of the (“so-called/allegedly”) feminist-led “domestic violence” field is closely entwined with certain Acts of Congress which, taken together in sequence, set up ongoing conflict with each other.*

*This ongoing conflict has then and (until today) IS being resolved by instead of handling the basic underlying issues, instead just combining operations.

But that the leading professionals in the field (which tends to feature nonprofit organizations) ALL ALONG were aware of the underlying conflict and the ongoing and “separate but UNequal” federal funding of the “gender” debate failed to mention this, consistently, as a potential factor in failures of the “prevention of violence against women” and prevention of child abuse. If the intent of the sponsors and (continued funding for) these Acts of Congress over time was genuine, then one of them  — the 1994 Violence Against Women Act — should not even have been necessary; the former one should’ve handled the issue.

If the 1994 Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”) was indeed to be effective, then why just two years later (with deliberations ongoing in the years leading up to it) did 1996 “Personal RIght to Work and Opportunity Reconciliation Act (“PRWORA, for short, “Welfare Reform”) incorporate public policy flashbacks perpetuated still, today, through 2020, to 1965 (“The Moynihan Report”) and backlash against women’s rights (when mothers, i.e., women with children) — to actually separate from domestic violence without subsequently forfeiting contact with those children, or being subjected to ongoing extortion and harassment because they understand the life-preserving principle of boundaries, through the family courts to the extent they seek to maintain contact with their own offspring, or continued risk of being murdered, or having children murdered, on court-ordered “Access and Visitation” exchanges, which are central to the ‘Family (i.e., Fatherhood) Values” themes of 1996 Welfare Reform Act, under Title IV-A (“TANF”) and Title IV-D (Family Support, i.e., Child Support Enforcement) ?

My point in the two basic quotes [shown below: one from Guardian.co.uk, the other from “Thoughtco.com”] was setting a political context, by decade of influence, in DV- and Family-Court related movements unique to the USA with our brand of nonprofit-based “shadow-government” and our government resources funding its own major, ongoing debt through the income tax system.

My point in doing the media platform drill-down is calling-out the “rigged field of competition” on what kinds of reforms do, and do not, catch public attention, as billionaire-owners of major media we may (or may not) have heard of NOT ONLY control various media, BUT ALSO when changing hands, set up foundations (tax-exempt organizations) which can be and are collectively coordinated either within (or across) political lines, to privately steer government in certain directions, NONE of which, generally, will veer far away from intentional control of the masses, social engineering, or funding generation after generation of population research professionals at the university level.

This post in the process of shortening another page also takes occasion to remind and review readers that within the USA that “domestic violence” field is closely entwined with certain acts of Congress (which years and specifically which acts would be good to memorize**) and built into its DNA is denial about the “fatal design flaws” of alternating dissociative practice with consolidating operations (under the “scarcity” and “interdisciplinary, holistic” rationale) of women’s, men’s (typically framed as “fathers'”) rights, the quality and nature of ANYTHING (part of government, nonprofit, campaign etc.) labeled “children and families” rights and safeguards within about the last 40-50 years.***

Because I do these drill-downs so regularly (though not always in the level of detail shown here, from two years ago), I have some posts and much more recent stories in the pipeline and some points I wish to raise, again, about why more of us should regularly take the time to look these up, as a basic “protocol” and valuable source of information.  It helps counteract propaganda and recognize where it’s routinely occurring.

. . . returning the focus to DV prevention policies, and laws with corresponding federal appropriations to implement the policies:

Much of the consolidated control topic I documented in 2016 and 2017 for the larger statewide organizations, those taking HHS grants, and the “Special Issue” or chosen “National Resource Centers” as funded 1984ff under the “FVPSA” (Family Violence Prevention and Services Act) which was implemented — and this is key to understanding it — through the US Department of Health and Human Services which had just been formed (separated from HEW) only in 1980.  [[See ALLgov.com to check; click “read more” under “History” tab, or check elsewhere for this fact.]]

Size of HHS (from ALLgov.com), also a gentle reminder (for how current, see that link):

One of the largest civilian departments in the federal government, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) oversees the implementation of numerous health and welfare-related programs. HHS’ budget accounts for almost one out of every four federal dollars, and it administers more grant dollars than all other federal agencies combined. HHS’ Medicare program is the nation’s largest health insurer, handling more than 1 billion claims per year. Medicare and Medicaid together provide health care insurance for 25% of Americans. Many HHS-funded services are provided at the local level by state or county agencies or through private sector grantees. With its large size also has come a large number of troubles and controversies involving birth control, prescription drugs, food safety and more.

Reminder — and this ALSO is key to understanding — that the Violence Against Women Act, featuring discretionary grants (the majority) from the US DOJ (NOT US HHS) came about 10 years later.  The key DV Organizations work with an awareness of both the 1984 HHS funding AND the 1994 VAWA-authorized funding.  QUESTION: If the 1984 HHS funding was not doing its job properly then why not call attention to this and analyze why not? Or, IF it WAS, then why not instead, work with  or within it?   INSTEAD — one movement (spearheaded by certain nonprofits, including (so its pages said) the Family VIolence Prevention Fund pretended the other didn’t really exist, while pushing for passage of the VAWA, I guess.

Meanwhile, in guess whose Presidential Administration 1992-1998, after a number of years of Republican Presidencies, 1996 being a key election year, the Republican “Contract with America” was pushing for a restructuring of welfare, against which then-President Clinton with his Welfare Reform Task Forces, and other advisers, pushed back. In this context, the  “Welfare Reform” was in effect holding ANY federal Congressional Budget Authorization Act hostage to working out a compromise situation so that a Republican-controlled Congress (both houses) would pass it, and a Democratic President would actually sign it.

Searched for simple lists of Presidents + Their terms, 1970s – about 2000;  I needed Images I could annotate …found two websites, took screenshots, and annotated them with these key events (1980, 1984, 1994, 1996…)

• A Guardian.UK list showing each year (dated to just before Election Day before Obama’s second term) gives the timeline and political parties.
• Another one shows President, Vice President, Party (color-coded…) and their terms: [Citation: Kelly, Martin. (2018, January 13). Chart of the Presidents and Vice Presidents. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/presidents-and-vice-presidents-chart-4051729].**

The first image is more heavily annotated, point (by me) is to get and retain a general concept of the timeline corresponding to which party or President was in power, and relating to specific changes in handling the “domestic violence” issues.  Also because at a certain point the second one wouldn’t take any more “Text” inserts, and I’d already made the notes on the first one…

**Fineprint on this website leads me to stick a footnote on this page.   Although I was just looking for a timeline of Presidents, among the top search results was one the “ThoughtCo.com” brand, fine print characterized as:

“ThoughtCo is a Dotdash brand and part of the IAC family of websites.”

DotDash offices in NYC, Chicago, and SF

An image, a few figures, a few characteristics (target audiences)…

(I see one of six brands.  Notice, no link to “IAC family of Websites is so conveniently provided.  Moral of the story — do you know, any given year, who owns your mass-media platforms? How hard is it, really, to pause a few moments, perhaps just minutes, in passing to observe?….)

Taking (perhaps a half hour) myself, I added a ThoughtCo.com~  DotDash ~ IAC Family of Websites footnote to this post.  It may be off-ramped later, leaving a link to new location here.  A second discussion / Footnote precedes it, which relates to a 1999 purchase by a British company (founded in 1918) of an American one (CMP Media, Inc.) formed in the 1970s, for $920M.  The privately controlled (through owning 68% of stock, after 1996 public offering) profits then were channeled into charity, which (one of those nonprofits, and the interlocking character of them) was where I first found about it.  If you’ve heard of “PRNewswire” “PCWeek” InfoWorld,” etc.  — some of those publications were involved.  Previously blogged herein, probably in late 2016 and relating to “transformative” education nonprofits as aligned with each other.  (Gerard & Lilo Leeds, Michael, later Daniel Leeds are among the family members).

TheGuardianUK’s 2012 US Presidents List (Excerpt, annotated for FCM) 1972-2001 | (cont’d “GWB,Jr.” comment for 2001): By 2003, GWB (thru USDOJ grants) endorses the “family justice center” program model against family violence, with attention to including pastors and the faith leadership in the One-Stop Justice Shops…

“Kelly, Martin. (2018, January 13). Chart of the Presidents and Vice Presidents. Retrieved from ThoughtCo.com…-4051729″ and annotated by me

Take a look, remembering that 1980 = HEW becomes HHHS and US Dept. of Educ (first major such restructuring since 1953 and that HHS has since expanded “exponentially” and is the largest grant-making federal agency, today…); 1984 – FVPSA passes and in 1994 – VAWA passes, creating a new office under the DOJ to implement it. Meanwhile, HOWEVER, and with a view towards targeting the larger HHS as grantmaker, a nonprofit in 1994 “The National Fatherhood Initiative” is also created, which quickly develops (or already had) revolving-door relationships with leadership of HHS itself.

However, the 1980s marked a rise of children’s and fathers’ rights organizations nationally also, paralleling the HHS-funded DV/Family Prevention consolidation through writing into its grantmaking “winners and losers” in the funding, under FVPSA.

To believe, still, that these were not reacting to the 1970s feminist organizations, particularly “NOW,” to no-fault divorce law (Calif. 1970) and such is not reasonable. In addition, by the 1980s, the Internet was becoming more widely available, and with it potential awareness (as groups continued to advertise and run campaigns for their causes) of who else is out there working AGAINST one’s cause.

On the FVPSA I have posted on (2016 or 2017), reading from Cornell.Law.Edu quoting its details, but I saw the major size discrepancies years earlier while looking at the TAGGS.HHS.gov grants database.  The statewide coalitions distribute funding, but the amounts they receive from HHS is far smaller than those designated as “DV National Resource Centers,” even though what some of those resource centers are doing is primarily providing well-developed websites with re-purposed information and publications.  Which a survivor, for example, is free to wade through in hopes of some help to understand the problems she (in the case of such) might be facing in the family court systems — in terms it was less than fond of, and increasingly (since the 1970s — another “professional courtesy secret it seems — ) capable of innocculating the courtrooms against taking it seriously in the new, problem-solving, healthy-relationship-focused language of behavioral modification and treatment programming.

So, while survivors unaware of that system and how it was set in place and in motion, would be speaking in the rhetoric of domestic violence and practical terms against it being counter-intuitive to good parenting, etc.  and, predictably, losing custody of their children to former abusers entirely (if protesting too hard), or watching progressive — or sudden, violent — destruction of their lives and hope for a different future — while being forced to co-parent with them, as managed, and supervised by the family court judges and others working with them, i.e., “community referrals to services.” ….[Incomplete sentence here, noticed Feb. 2020.  Read in the larger context.]

So, Noticing who were those national or special-issue (family-violence-deterrent) resource centers, and what key assumptions and philosophies they espouse/d (NCJFCJ, Duluth, Minnesota’s DAIP, the Family Violence Prevention Fund in SF (Now ‘Futures without Violence’), the Texas National DV Hotline, and some others), is also important to understanding why NONE of them are going to openly bite the hand that feeds them and report on the harmful impact of PRWORA funding on the family law outcomes, by design, and later entrenched in “HMRF” funding, which, as the HHS is far larger than the USDOJ, is also larger than anything designated and distributed through the US DOJ/OVW. 

The impact of PRWORA was reported by feminist groups, at times, but typically in terms of not enough childcare, food stamps/cash aid towards poor women (i.e., in terms of progressive politics), NOT in terms of how grants to single state agencies, for use by the states “at will” to meet PRWORA goals, including design and program support for “Alternate methods” of coming to custody and visitation decisions — which indirectly fed both the judges’ association of NCJFCJ, and the programming pushed SINCE ABOUT 1980, through DAIP (Coordinated Community Response, Supervised Visitation), and the other private, nonprofit, “Trade” association (501©3)  notable for involvement of family court judge membership and very activist membership it has been throughout — the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.

…which in its programming and continual emphasis on “international, interdisciplinary” doesn’t even display allegiance to US institutions, priorities, or concepts when it comes to the social service or mental health sector, which I caught them quoting (and in more than a few aspects), found from an earlier post herein.

[READER NOTE: Text in this section is the context for the “Footnote” was “Footnote” to another page //LGH Feb 9, 2020

FOOTNOTE: UBM (British, David Lloyd George) buyout of CMP Media (US, the Leeds Family) for $920M shortly after it went public in 1996 — File Under:

Media Consolidation, Sales ~~>Nonprofit Foundations ~~> Private Philanthropy exercising its clout on Changing Public Institutions ~~>Trends towards B2B focus, on-line advertising + e-commerce (mega-profits through buying and selling brands)…

An ongoing theme of this blog is awareness of WHERE one’s information is coming from.  There have been previous posts on media consolidation — in part when one nonprofit foundation I was looking at (as I recall in education transformation themed-posts, late 2016) turned out to have been funded by a corporate media sell-off.  That type of fortune is going to go, typically at least in part, to a foundation, controlled first by the founder, later by the next generation, as happened there.  (Searchable term on the blog, UBM). Or search for a post with the phrase “Freedom of the Press” in its title. Here are some of those references.

UBM Media bought CMP Media from the Leeds (founders, Gerald & Lilo Leeds, oldest son Michael, another son Daniel had become involved) for $920M in 1998; it had been formed ca. 1971, but just went public in 1996.  With this, they turned to the nonprofit sector. (See Wikipedia and FundingUniverse.com, the latter typically only covers up to 2002). Key point there — UBM has become primarily Business to Business events; in any changeover, actual news is likely to be short-changed some in favor of revenues:   UBM plc, Wiki:

The company was founded in 1918 as United Newspapers^[4] by David Lloyd George to acquire the Daily Chronicle and Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper. In 1929, the company merged with Provincial Newspapers, an owner of regional papers in the north; the next year, it sold its national papers.^[5]The company continued for decades as a regional newspaper publisher, making acquisitions such as Yorkshire Post Newspapers in 1969.^[5]

It acquired PR Newswire in 1982.^[4] In 1985, it bought Express Newspapers and continued to publish the Daily Express for some 15 years.^[4] It changed its name to United News & Media in 1995,^[4] sold its regional papers in 1998, and bought CMP Media in 1999 for $920 million.^[4] In 2000, it sold the Daily Express to Richard Desmond and adopted the name of United Business Media. It went on to acquire Commonwealth Business Media for $152 million in 2006.^[6]

In 2008, UBM moved its tax headquarters to Ireland, but in 2012, the company announced its intent to move its tax base back to the United Kingdom.^[7] In 2012, PA Group, the parent company of the Press Association, sold its 50% stake in Canada Newswire to joint venture partner UBM for £30.1 million.^[8]

By 2015, UBM had rebranded itself as primarily focused on B2B events. Reflecting this, 82 percent of its business in 2016 derived from events and only 18 percent from other marketing services.^[9]

CMP, FundingUniverse.com (See esp. around 1997, Public Offering.  This account doesn’t go up to its acquisition by what later became UBM.  The April 30,1999 NYTimes article under Business Day, by “Dow Jones” does. I also included article from the NYPost and one from CBSNews, which points out the “explosive growth” in advertising and on-line commerce at the time, which the US Company had, and which the British company wanted.  Despite the public offering, and including through various trusts — the Leeds family still controlled 68% of the stock.  They simply agreed to sell for the price offered.

Article link to CBS News on CMP Media sale, 1999

…”This acquisition makes sense from both business and cultural perspectives,” said Michael Leeds, chief executive of CMP, based in Manhasset, N.Y. ||  The technology publishing market in the U.S. has seen annual growth of 13 percent over the last 10 years. It was worth $3.5 billion in 1997.

Written By Gareth Vaughan, CBS MarketWatch

NYT Bus Day 4/30/1999 on sale of CMP Media (US company) to British United News & Media for $920M (article link on image & nearby on blog page)

NYPost 4/30/1999, article (not much longer than what’s shown) here.

<==The Media Business:  CMP Media to be bought for $920 Million  (NYT)

FOOTNOTE:  THOUGHTCO.com, DotDash Brands (six of them), IAC family of websites.

(There is more of a story than shown here.  This footnote may be moved later to a separate post).

Incidental, but related to where we get our information from.  I noticed immediately that the “our Team” on “ThoughtCo” was three people, 1 women and 2 men, a 1:3 ratio.  However, the 9-person leadership team on “DotDash” brands was 1 woman and 8 other men (including one also on ThoughtCo) a 1:9 ratio.

After looking, generally, at the size, scope and branding (acquisitions, merger, sell-offs) of IAC, some shown below, I went to a favorite source which, remarkably, doesn’t seem to have been bought out, sold off, or shelved (thank goodness) — although it typically only goes up to about the year 2002.  Even so — (and it does go only that for for “IAC”) its format, while going through the events at breakneck speed, because of that speed (and presenting a timeline up front) is I find helpful for getting a historic sense of a company’s events. It’s fairly neutral in tone, not coming from the organizations themselves.

http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/usa-interactive-inc-history/ <==recommended!!

Diller Building His Media Empire: 1995-98

Media mogul Barry Diller became the chairman and CEO of the newly formed USA Networks, Inc. in 1998. Prior to that Diller’s distinguished career included serving as chairman of the board of Paramount Pictures Corp. from 1974 to 1984. From October 1984 to April 1992 he was the chairman and CEO of Fox, Inc., where he created the Fox Television Stations group and established Fox Broadcasting as the United States’ fourth broadcast television network. From December 1992 to December 1994 Diller was the chairman and CEO of the cable shopping network QVC Inc. While at QVC Diller attempted to gain control of CBS, but the merger was blocked by Comcast Corp., which subsequently took control of QVC. In 1994 Diller attempted to gain control of Paramount Pictures but lost a $10 billion bidding war to Viacom.

In August 1995 Diller was named the chairman and CEO of Silver King Communications, Inc. Silver King was a subsidiary of the Home Shopping Network, which owned and operated 12 TV stations that carried primarily HSN programming. Eight of Silver King’s stations served the top 12 markets in the United States. Diller gained control of Silver King with the help of investors such as billionaire David Geffen and John Malone, the head of the nation’s then largest cable system, Tele-communications Inc., later known as TCI Inc. 

David Geffen (wiki). Bloomberg Billionaire #209 (2018).  Forbes “10 Billionaires of the Music Business” (#7, in 2012?)

(UPDATE NOTE, Feb., 2020:  I do not recall why I had David Geffen in here, but the link is interesting in its own right. No question he’s been a major media influence in our time//LGH).

Although Diller was interested in Silver King’s television stations and their potential to reach an audience of nearly 30 million viewers, he was perhaps more interested in gaining control of Silver King’s parent company, Home Shopping Network, Inc. (HSN). HSN had been founded in 1982 as the Home Shopping Club in St. Petersburg, Florida, by radio station owner Lowell “Bud” Paxson and attorney and real estate investor Roy Speer. In 1985 the Home Shopping Club went national as the Home Shopping Network, and in 1986 the company went public. Paxson resigned from HSN in 1990 and went on to establish the Pax TV network. From 1991 to 1995 HSN’s annual sales leveled off to about $1 billion per year.

At the end of November 1995 Diller agreed to acquire the 41 percent controlling interest in HSN that was held by Liberty Media, a subsidiary of TCI, for a stock swap valued at nearly $1.3 billion. Liberty’s stake in HSN represented 80 percent of HSN’s voting stock, and Diller became HSN’s chairman. At the same time he also acquired Savoy Pictures Entertainment Inc., a film and television production firm. After these acquisitions passed regulatory approval, Silver King, HSN (including the Internet Shopping Network), and Savoy Pictures merged in December 1996. Silver King Communications, Inc. was renamed HSN, Inc. Following the merger, Liberty Media owned about 20 percent of HSN and about 36 percent of Silver King’s stock.

In mid-1997 HSN, Inc. completed its acquisition of 50 percent of the Ticketmaster Group, Inc. from Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen in a stock-for-stock deal valued around $210 million. The acquisition of the ticket sales and fulfillment company gave HSN additional capabilities in interactive electronic commerce.

Acquisition Resulting in Creation of USA Networks, Inc.: 1998..

[There’s plenty more, followed by a bibliography and this note:  “Source: International Directory of Company Histories, Vol. 47. St. James Press, 2002.” found on most pages of FundingUniverse.com I’ve seen.]

Funding universe images (two) from the top of the page, pls. click images to enlarge if needed to read

FundingUniverse.com on “USA Interactive, Inc.” (but only until 2002) re: Barry Diller, Silver Communications, Inc. (orig. a subsidiary of HSN) — did USA Interactive, Inc. become “IAC” sometimes after 2002? DNK yet — either way, it’s a window into how the industry operates, and consolidations, dealmaking, sell-offs for the industry…

Source url (both images) at FundingUniverse.com

IAC.com, self-description in other words (there’s also an interactive timeline — with just logos and a fact or two each year) from 1995-2017 on the “About” page; check it out).

Started with Barry Diller of Silver Communications, Inc. (see directly above, Funding Universe.com on USA Interactive, Inc.)

IAC.com, beginning of timeline and only item under “1995”

From the IAC.com (see “history” and click on each year) Timeline…

IAC’s unique legacy is driven by its ability to acquire, create and assemble high performing businesses and category leaders, and in the process transform everything from how to buy a concert ticket to how to find a date. It’s this legacy that has spawned 10 public companies, including ANGI Homeservices Inc. Match Group, Expedia, TripAdvisor, HSN, Tree, Interval, and Live Nation (formerly Ticketmaster), creating equity value in excess of $47 billion over the course of more than 20 years

Barry Diller saw in the early days what is commonplace today: that technical leaps in interactivity would revolutionize commerce in record time.

Since IAC’s inception more than 20 years ago, IAC businesses have consistently unleashed the power of digital interactivity to transform daily living. Businesses like Expedia and Ticketmaster proved that entire industries, such as travel and ticketing, could move from offline to online at a previously unthinkable pace. Over time, the company added to those businesses, growing them into massive entities then spinning them off to shareholders, only to start building anew.

IAC is not a believer in simply agglomerating assets in perpetuity: as entities grow into size and maturity, it’s healthy to give them separation and independence. IAC has built its name by not being reliant on amassing great companies, but on creating them, fostering them, and preparing them to stand on their own

Example of a timeline Brand-name with “Read More” link:  In 2013 (says the PRNewswire) ValueClick (also one of the largest around and public-traded) sells off its “O&O” (Owned & Operated) websites segment — to IAC.com (ditto), including Investopedia (which I read often enough). ValueClick,(public-traded), is

ValueClick, Inc. (NASDAQ: VCLK) is one of the world’s largest digital marketing companies.  …

and as described there, IAC is, also public-traded:….

IAC (NASDAQ: IACI) is a leading media and internet company comprised of more than 150 brands and products, including Ask.com, About.com, Match.com, HomeAdvisor and Vimeo. Focused in the areas of search, applications, online dating, local and media, IAC’s family of websites is one of the largest in the world, with more than a billion monthly visits across more than 100 countries.

Wikipedia on IAC, Inc. Such a drive to acquire, dispose of, merge, sell off, etc..!!

Wiki sidebar gives history of company name (and other facts)

In case there’s any question that IAC is the former USA Interactive, Inc. referenced above on FundingUniverse.com, Wikipedia on IAC clears this up.  See nearby two images.  I also note (not shown here, but on the Wiki) that among the directors is one actual Prince (son of Diane von Furstenberg, the famous (and iconic, and it seems fearless) fashion designer, who married a prince, briefly); Barry Diller (married DVF in 2001, per her Wiki) is his stepfather; there is a Diller-von-Furstenberg Family Foundation.

There are two women (only) on the IAC board of directors, one of which is Chelsea Clinton.  I think you get the general idea.  Wikipedia flagged the description of the Prince (who has a degree from Brown University, 1993) on the basis of it being a bio of a living person which needs more documentation.

(etc.)

***The San Francisco Bay Area, organized like many metropolitan regions, into quasi-governmental power bases such as “ABAG” (Association of Bay Area Governments), including Berkeley, Oakland, Silicon Valley (Stanford U, Palo Alto), typifies the Golden State’s progressive arrogance [elitist control of local governments and nepotism at the county, community and state levels]  and sell-out of basic enforcement of existing laws in favor of paradigm-switching to a more global, “behavior-health-based” model — all of which privatized services, as well as the re-training for the process of switching, the public should pay for, more than it already has….

The area’s beautiful geography, climate (not county the regular wildfires and periodic earthquakes), and California’s long coastline with major ports in San Francisco, Oakland and (same state, further south) Los Angeles, and even (San Diego area) a border with Mexico, make the state a hub for billionaires.

Billionaires like to justify their wealth through so-called ‘philanthropy’ (quid per quo with governments) through “community service” (i.e., accelerated control of communities through =chosen nonprofits + tax-reduction through tax-exemption, at times tax-evasion).

California also, through the state employees’ multi-billion-dollar global investment platform (CalPERS), is a tempting power base.  Another thing — periodically both billionaires and top-level (state) political leadership, like our current President of the United States, have to make use of divorce and family courts and the judges and lawyers that populate them — repeatedly.

As do, obviously, many Hollywood celebrities.

[[Feb. 13, 2020, updates.  {Section update is miscellaneous extra information.  The Wiki and other links were interesting reading on some famous people.  Section marked by different background/font color within this light-blue-background section…//LGH].

I believe it may be safer to live in less prosperous, geographically desirable and self-righteously diverse, progressive and “criminal justice-reform” minded states. I like diversity, interesting climates (including being near oceans), and until my personal experience as a woman and mother with the secular response to religious married wife-abuse (spousal battering and economic shut-down) (system response: faith-based outreach by “Family Justice Centers,” 21st Century, a feature of the 2001-2008 George W. Bush administration), I’d thought and often (not always, but generally) voted Democrat.

I proved that without a resident abuser, it was indeed possible to self-support within my profession as a single mother, and be a decent and co-operative parent, but my own family of origin (siblings, not parent) and the family courts in the aftermath of (1996) Welfare Reform and (as to California, 1998-2000) increasing centralized and privatized control of: the courts; the courthouses (real estate/property); the court employees including Superior Court Judges; the top state authority over those courts, i.e., the California Judicial Council’s Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), subsection “CFCC” (Center for Families and Children in the Courts, a combination of two prior subdivisions providing statewide services — as managed with significant input by (private entity) AFCC member judges and program administrators to run those federal grants to the states for access and visitation (increased noncustodial=Father contact in exchange for compromise of child support arrears) to set up “alternative ways” to decide where children live) — would have none of it.  My children grew up, eventually left the state, and having neither professional, practical, or familial reasons to stay (and familial reasons to leave!) I too finally escaped — literally, “made a run for it” unannounced to almost anyone who knew me, including my own children (young-adults by then) soon after officially becoming a “senior,” and I believe, just in time.

To go back to the top of this post, click on its title:

Major Transform/Reform Campaigns [Regardless of Cause] Involve Branded, On-line Media Platforms. Keep an Eye on Who owns which Brands & Platforms: Do Periodic Drill-downs.. [Publ. Feb. 12, 2020, FROM my Feb. 2018 ‘Consolidated Control of DV Advocacy’  Page]. (shortlink ends “-c9y)

THAT (Feb. 2018) page’s Title and shortlink**:

Consolidated Control of DV Advocacy by Feminist Leadership Refusing to Identify, by Name and Financing, The Opposition Entities. Subtitle: Personal Relevance to a Post-DV-Intervention, Unprosecuted, Child-Stealing Event by Ex-Batterer case in the SF Bay Area. [a PAGE, Publ. Feb. 2, 2018]: (Case-sensitive shortlink (all parts of it) ends “/PsBXH-8rg”). note:  post protocol is lower-case “p” in “psBXH” but Page is upper-case, “P” in “PsBXH.”  (The characters PsBXH or psBXH probably (both) represent this specific blog).

Its parent page and shortlink** is my blog “Front Page”: LGH Top Picks, Themes, Tables of Contents, and Why My Gravatar is a Blue Jay taking Flight. (New Jan. 11, 2018). (short-link ends “/PsBXH-8o0″ (Last character is a zero), however, if you simply type in “FamilyCourtMatters.org” it’s pretty hard to miss). …