[cujic9]

On a side note, I did some more digging, and:

The Agnelli family is the largest shareholder in the Economist. The Rothschilds are second largest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economist_Group#Ownership

Also, as of 2015:

> Pearson’s move to sell most of its stake to Exor, the investment company run by the Agnellis, upholds a tradition of dynastic ownership of media assets. Rupert Murdoch owns News UK, which publishes the Sun and the Times, the Barclay brothers own the Telegraph, and the Rothermere family controls the Daily Mail titles. Overseas, the Sulzberger family owns the New York Times, the Springers control huge chunks of German media and the Bonnier family owns a large publishing portfolio in Sweden. Newspapers have long been the playthings of wealthy media barons who are seduced by the access and influence they bring.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/15/economist-beco...

Just because press is foreign doesn't mean it's objective or independent of politics. News is a business, and just like any business, the owners make decisions based on their beliefs.

[beaner]

Definitely true, but also besides the point. The comment in question was suggesting government control/influence, not familial dynastic influence.

Also just because much press internationally is political doesn't mean they share the same political perspectives. They are often at odds with each other by region.

Further, the type of media controlled this way no longer has a monopoly in information. Thanks to the internet, there are many smaller and diverse organizations with perspectives now as easily accessible.