Haven’t seen anybody bitching, griping, or complaining about this, so I thought I’d bring it up.
Evidently, AT&T created the OANN.
AT&T feels like it’s no big deal.
I don’t have much to add except that I’m glad we dropped AT&T over their sketchy billing practices a few years ago. Screw them.
It sounds more like “inspired the creation of, encouraged, and supported,” rather than “created,” per se.
From the Reuters article:
AT&T is headquartered in Texas, ain’t it? I’ll bet nearly everyone still thinks this is the same company that we used to call AT&T or Bell Labs in New Jersey.
A bit of history, as I vaguely remember it after all these years:
Once upon a time, when the world was young, AT&T was the nationwide near-monopoly of telephone services. Eventually the Big Bad Gummint forced them to split up into a whole bunch of little local independent phone companies, which were called “Baby Bells”.
Eventually, some of these Baby Bells were more successful than others and grew into large companies. Some of the smaller ones remained small.
Then the larger telecoms began to buy up the smaller ones. This process continued, with the Baby Bell in Texas (IIRC it was called Southwestern Bell or similar) in particular growing to be a big conglomerate, swallowing the multitudes of little ones. They eventually grew to be the big nationwide near-monopoly, just as AT&T had been.
Eventually, this upstart Texas company adopted the name AT&T and that’s who we’re dealing with now.
(Can somebody here fill in any relevant details that I’ve forgotten, or correct any errors I’ve made here?)
Anyway, that’s probably relevant in understanding why AT&T is all into supporting a right-wing conservative network like OAN.
There has been quite a bit in the BBQ Pit but no actual thread devoted to it. I think this deserves its own thread so kudos.
It’s interesting to watch AT&T struggle to control the narrative on this OANN story. When they entered into the relationship with the Dallas Cowboys that secured naming rights to their stadium it was a well-choreographed series of press releases and promotional events. Contrast that with the sputtering and backtracking you see as these ties to OANN are coming to light.
AT&T never should have gotten into bed with those assholes. Or with OANN for that matter.
Time for me to change my carrier.
AT&T is my only option and I hate them. I damn near have a panic attack when I have to contact them for any reason.
As soon as I found out (thanks to a thread here in SDMB about schadenfreude & Trump & his enablers) I sold my shares in the company (not that many, won’t hurt them) and scolded my bank advisor for recomending them and for not telling me as soon as he found out (turns out: he did not know and was glad I had told him). Scolded him again, this time for incompetence.
The bastards pay over 8% dividend, should have known that there must be a reason for that.
Did he have instructions from you to only recommend non-Republican investments?
I don’t follow your logic here. I mean, there’s certainly SOME reason a company pays an 8% dividend, I just don’t see how it would be related to having given someone the idea to start OANN.
He has instructions not to recommend anything related to social media, Facebook, Twitter, and so on. Nor related to weapons, oil industry, Monsanto, grand scale deforestation, Allianz and some other things that would get tedious if we went into the details. Nothing that supports Nazis, Antisemites or conspiracy theories related to vaccines. Is that Republican enough for you?
If somebody pays that much it is because investors don’t buy it (that would rise the price, therefore lowering the dividend yield). If a sector is stable (telecoms), it pays 1/12th of the price in dividends and the price does not rise, investors must be shunning it because some other reason. Being immoral, for instance.
Honestly? No. As a former advisor, I wouldn’t see that list and have a problem with investing in AT&T in regards to its very loose connection with OANN. Why? Because you have no restrictions on it, or on other related companies (like Fox, for instance).
It doesn’t appear that the volume on T is out of synch with the rest of the sector. Maybe give your advisor instructions to only invest in income-paying investments that yield a moral 5% or less. Or just stick to Calvert funds.
OK, so we disagree. I don’t see the connection as very loose, it is marginal, but very close. Without AT&T OANN would probably not exist. It is peanuts for AT&T, but it shows something about them: Antisemitism, proximity to conspiracy theories regarding vaccination, sympathy to totalitarian tendencies. So I sell.
You don’t like Calvert Funds either?
I don’t have a problem at all with Calvert - they’re an excellent solution for investors that have serious concerns with supporting organizations and causes you’ve outlined (as well as others). They don’t perform as well as well because, unfortunately, oil, tobacco and war are big money makers.
A good chunk of that is going to be no longer under their umbrella once the spinoff of Warner is complete.
DirecTV, 70% owned by AT&T, has announced that they do not plan to renew OANN’s contract when the current one expires in a few months.
So. AT&T created OANN? And now maybe they will uncreate it.
What AT&T giveth, the same can AT&T taketh away.