Al Gore stands to gain about $70 million after selling Current TV to al-Jazeera

[alp227]

Source: washington post

Al Gore, who shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his fight against global warming, may gross about $70 million from the sale of his Current TV network to al-Jazeera, the cable channel funded in part by oil-rich Qatar.

Al-Jazeera will pay about $500 million for Current TV, including the stake held by Gore, 64, according to two people with knowledge of the deal. The network is one of dozens of investments made by the former vice president since he lost the 2000 presidential race by a slim margin.

“It’s reeking with irony,” said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, senior associate dean at the Yale School of Management, who studies corporate governance. “It seems to be at least a paradox in terms of his positions on sustainability and geopolitics.”

The deal highlights Gore’s makeover from career politician to successful businessman. His take from the Current TV sale is many times the maximum net worth of $1.7 million he reported while running for president in 1999. Besides investing in start-ups, Gore is on the board of Apple, an adviser to Google and a partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, according to his Web site biography.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/al-gore-stands-to-gain-about-70-million-after-selling-current-tv-to-al-jazeera/2013/01/04/4775e5d2-56a5-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efc_story.html

[JI7]

1. good for him, at least he is making money through informing and teaching

shows you don't have to destroy other people to make money.

[Gkdemonut]

57. Destroy Other People?

He has destroyed many a family!!!!
How?
He was the voice of selling Nafta

NAFTA, his debate with Perot.

Nafta's implementation was the underlying catalyst for Americans needing national health care.

When all the companies shifted to other country's. Along with that went millions of health care benefits, along with the lost jobs!

He didn't crush anyone? Laughable, he only got super rich in the process.
just ask the folks between 45 & 60 whom lost there jobs due to Nafta and have never been able to find same paying employment, with a decent health care program.

There are millions of them!

Oh yeah, another thing that went away with Nafta, was a chance at saving a Pension

[kestrel91316]

59. Gore was VP. He is not responsible for NAFTA. That is Clinton's cross to bear.

But I think you knew that.

Welcome to DU. Enjoy your stay.

[bubbayugga]

81. Gore was the one on Larry King with Ross Perot selling NAFTA, not Clinton.

Gore owns NAFTA.

[2ndAmForComputers]

72. But you sure showed him in 2000, huh?

[riverbendviewgal]

77. You got any links on that?

Welcome to DU

[LTR]

2. And this is what they call the "liberal media"

The whole thing is a Gore hitpiece with RW talking points. Sure this wasn't from the Washington Times?

And since when do right-wingers feel it's a crime to make money?

[Cha]

5. The WashPost has its rw water carriers, for sure.

[harmonicon]

60. Just the tone is disgusting.

Then there's the lead-off that he "lost" the election, not that the Supreme Court appointed a president, but I digress.

Unfortunately, I think what passes for the left in the US is partly responsible for this attitude. I see it here all the time. There's some idea (this idea is further promulgated by the right) that how one participates in our capitalist economy is dependent on personal feelings of responsibility, and ultimately, charity. This is bullshit. Capitalism is a system, and once one is a part of it, it is the system that determines the outcome, not the person. However, since capitalism is the Supreme Being, it must not be criticized, so we criticize those who profit from it individually. Since we can't demonize capitalism, we demonize human beings due to our feelings of resentment and disillusionment which would appropriately be aimed at the system.

[DeeDeeNY]

67. You nailed it

All excellent points

[2ndAmForComputers]

73. Since the person making money is somebody they don't like.

[Coyotl]

3. Congratulations Al.

[unblock]

4. did his positions on sustainability and geopolitics speak against ownership transferrence?

i'm missing what the irony or paradox is.

oh look! sonnenfeld's biggest political contribution was to a republican, shays for senate.
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/jeffrey-sonnenfeld.asp?cycle=12

now i understand.

[Festivito]

7. Right. What irony? What paradox? None. It's just RW name calling.

They try to make it look true by adding that it's reeking, and more acceptable to people with low standards with: "it seems to be at least" ... something else we can call someone not liked.

Good for Al.

[pennylane100]

6. He may have to part with a big chunck of that money

if Keith Olbermann wins his suit against Current unless liability for the suit was part of the sale.

[MADem]

15. There's a countersuit to his suit, and he did violate the non-disparagement clause in his contract.

I don't think there will be a big payday for KO at the end of the day. His suit reads like a junior high school litany of complaints--it's not his finest hour. Time will tell, though.

[pennylane100]

38. Yes, I think the trial will be interesting.

I did not come to the same conclusion as you, although you may well be right. I felt that he had outlined many instances where the contract he signed was clearly broken when Hyatt arrived on the scene.

I always summarize things by asking myself which side would I bet on. I think my money this time would be on Olbermann, but then again, I have often bet on the loosing side.

[Marrah_G]

8. I hope he puts the money to good use.

[Crowman1979]

9. Well at least he didn't sell Current to Glenn Beck.

[olddad56]

10. At least he didn't make his money the way the Bush crime family did.

At least it was something other than drilling and killing.

[GoCubsGo]

61. No. He just sold his network to a government that is drilling and killing.

You do understand that Al Jazeera is owned by the government of Qatar?

[RandiFan1290]

71. So what?

What's your point?

[DonCoquixote]

11. as badly as we need current

at least al jazeera might do a lot of the good Current did by offering an actual alternative.

[quadrature]

12. is there currently a shortage of cable channels?

in ten tears, any 20 YO college kid
will be able to run a TV station
from their dorm room

[progree]

13. RW'ers ridicule Gore as being a joke for saying he "invented the Internet" and sweating global warm

and sweating global warming (a "hoax" fabricated by climate "scientists" trying to keep their jobs by alarming the public), according to the right-wing memes I see on news.yahoo.com's comments section. How interesting that he turns out to be a very successful businessman, one who makes a lot lot more money than the pathetic CONNEDservative goobers that ridicule him.

[Festivito]

24. ..and, amazingly, without uttering the word "invented" in that sentence.

He did work hard "in creating" the internet as we know it today. But, he didn't invent it, nor did he ever claim he did.

The he-invented-the-internet is one of the most successful right-wing Republican Conservative lies of my life and times.

[MADem]

40. That was back when that Turd Rove was on his game!

He went to the well too often, that basstid!

[progree]

41. Yup. I was thinking after posting it that maybe I ought to clarify that "invented the Internet" was

RW fiction. What he said is this according to Snopes and Wikipedia for those curious about the exact wording:

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

Also his role in promoting and funding the technology.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_and_information_technology

[Festivito]

48. That was one of THREE LIES the RW passed around about Al Gore.

They claimed he said he started the cleanup of Love Canal when he actually said a school girl's letter started a cleanup in her own area after he looked at a map and found Love Canal was just upstream from that girl.

Those two resulted from the Moonie, Washington Times misquoting Al Gore. They MUCH later corrected the quotes and then lied saying it meant the same thing! Huh? Wah? No kidding, thank goodness that Moonie's dead.

The third was that Al Gore claimed the story Love Story was about him. I never did find an actual quote that would be from Al Gore, but, Erich Segal the author of Love Story said that his story's protagonist was modeled after a combination of Al Gore and his college roommate the later to be famous actor Tommy Lee Jones.

RWers either make lies or pass lies.

[progree]

49. Ahh, yes. It brings back so many awful memories of the 2000 election n/t

[Uncle Joe]

50. Only because the corporate media as an institution carried Republican water

from that poisonous well for so long as to brainwash too many people.

The Washington Post being a prime contributor, that's the true "irony" or "paradox" of this rag seeming to actually give a rat's ass about global warming today.

[Festivito]

55. And, they're still carrying Republican water along with NPR.

Global climate change is becoming all too clear now. Acknowledging it is no skin off their nose anymore.

Our progressive media get dismantled and sold.

[MADem]

14. Excuse me? Why are they crabbing about the guy making a payday?

I remember when CURRENT first came out--it was a very curious start-up, with mostly user-generated content. It morphed into something I found very enjoyable, and it operated sufficiently under the radar that they could get away with ...er...talking about "Inconvenient Truths" ... that the major networks would not touch.

It's not like AG didn't work at the job; he put his shoulder to the wheel and developed the network. If he wants to cash in now, more power to him. He's not getting any younger and he doesn't owe anyone anything.

Hell, rMoney makes more than that sitting around picking his nose and farting. Why not go after him?

[regnaD kciN]

16. Maybe because...

...at a point where we seem to be losing progressive (or, for that matter, non-ultraconservative) voices on the airwaves at a rapidly-increasing pace, this sale will cost us yet another outlet and silence the television presences of Stephanie Miller, Jennifer Granholm, Eliot Spitzer, and TYT? (In Miller's case, it's especially problematic, as both major stations which were carrying her show in the ultra-liberal Pacific Northwest have flipped to sports-talk over the past two months. Now, her show can't be heard on radio up here, and will be vanishing from cable as well.)

[MADem]

17. Well, the WAPO article didn't focus on that aspect one whit.

The focus of their gripe seems to be "Waaah--Al Gore made some money...how DARE he?" Read the thing--they don't say one lousy word about any of the on-air talent, all they do is crab about how much money Al might make, and what his portfolio looks like--it's a craven bit of anger and envy disguised as a news article.

Absolutely nothing is said about what will happen to the people working at Current in that article--it's more about the sale and the major players--buyers and sellers--involved. With plenty of griping about Al's wallet!

While we know from other sources that Newsom and Granholm are gone and won't be signing on with AJ, we don't know what's going to happen with all of the shows. Rumors continue to abound.

It's not impossible that some of these talents will migrate to other venues.

TYT used to have more viewers via the NET than anywhere else; be interesting to see if they go back to their roots or try to muscle in over at CNN or MSNBC.

CNN desperately needs a "Youth Makeover." MSNBC ought to shitcan "The Cycle" and replace it with any one of the CURRENT shows.

Maybe Miller can grab Limpballs' slot when he finally tanks--that's got to happen eventually.


Time will tell, I guess.

[NCarolinawoman]

52. "The Cycle" gets on my nerves! n/t

Don't like that show at all!

[riverbendviewgal]

78. Me neither

I think Al Gore should make money on his sale....He did it honestly...not like W and Cheney.

[alp227]

18. KPOJ had a local morning show instead of mama.

[graham4anything]

22. Yup.

even if they even picked up some of the people, there are only 24 hours a day.
And what happens to the staff already at the new place?

You can't pay for 2x the staff when airtime is limited.

[djean111]

29. Trust me, conservatives are quite cheery about that part of it.

[patrice]

56. Do we know that Gore isn't seeking a new financial architecture for those voices?

Something more appropriate to the kinds of systemic change we are seeking?

Now would be a good time to go there.

[Enrique]

33. they are reporting

I want to know things like this.

[MADem]

36. “It’s reeking with irony,” sounds like OPINING to me.

Where was this leading-edge, raw-boned "reportage" when rMoney was running for President? Guess they left their cub reporter badges at home during that long year of horror!

Al Gore is a private citizen--must all "environmentalists" wear sackcloth and ashes?

ಠ_ಠ

I smell an agenda on the part of this "reporter." The agenda includes a specific dislike of Al Gore.

[Enrique]

42. Washington Post declines Romney request to retract Bain outsourcing story

A spokesperson for The Washington Post said Wednesday the newspaper would not be retracting a controversial report about Mitt Romney's tenure at Bain Capital despite a request from the candidate’s campaign.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/235123-romney-campaign-to-meet-with-washington-post-ask-for-retraction-of-bain-story#ixzz2H7eYhVjU


that Washington Post story by the way was used by Obama in one of his ads:

“The Washington Post has just revealed that Romney’s companies were pioneers in shipping U.S. jobs overseas.... Does Iowa really want an outsourcer-in-chief in the White House?”

[MADem]

44. Enrique, because they got it right once with Mittsy doesn't mean this article is terribly fair or

complete. FWIW, they avoided plenty went it came to Mittsy--one had to go to the Boston Globe to get much of what they declined to cover.

This is a hit-n-run dig at Gore. It's all about HIS finances, and it's not like he's the only owner over at CURRENT. In fact, he owned what, twenty percent of the franchise? Not a word about his partners--why not dig into their portfolios? How much will Hyatt take home? Feinstein's husband?

Even the title of the hit piece is All About Al. It's like "How dare he make a smart business deal." It's no secret that CURRENT has been on the block for awhile. Why not take the best offer with cash to back it?

And who knows what he'll do with his profits--perhaps invest in another iteration of Harvest Energy?

I don't see anything terribly "ironic" about bringing oil money back to the US in the form of deep profit on a sale--hell, they do that shit all the time. We're still the largest consumers of the crap, after all-what else should be done with their cash? Encourage these oil-producing nations to invest in.... China?

Curious. The tone of the piece is confrontational--I noticed this. I don't think I am the only one.

[Paladin]

19. Stephanie Miller Better Re-Surface Somewhere Else, And Soon.

I'm not all that upset about Gore lining his pockets, but I will be pissed if Mama is off the air for very long.....

[BumRushDaShow]

25. ???? She's been on SiriusXM long before CurrentTV

Current merely simulcast her and Bill Press' daily radio shows.

http://www.siriusxm.com/siriusxmleft

[GoCubsGo]

64. She is on several other radio stations, as well--that you don't have to pay to hear.

You can find all the affiliates on her web page, and most of them, if not all, web-stream. And, if you are lucky enough to live live in the cities with those affiliates, all you have to do is turn on your radio. They just picked up a station in Seattle, which will begin broadcasting her tomorrow.

[JCMach1]

20. AJE is both better production-wise than Current and usually

more to the left...

I see this as a good move. Most of the time, I found Current unwatchable.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

21. Al Jazeera's shows are well done.

It will be great being able to watch real global news instead of the fodder we get from U.S. corporations.

[JCMach1]

34. Exactly, Current was a good idea

but not so good in execution...

[fasttense]

23. If an Australian backed by Saudi money can tell America the news

and act as the propaganda channel for the RepubliCON party, then an international station owned by a middle Eastern state can buy a station from a man who had the American presidency stolen from him.

My head hurts.

[BumRushDaShow]

26. The U.S. has become a pawn of Saudis vs Qataris.

[MADem]

37. Not just a middle eastern state, but a PERSON in charge of a middle eastern state.

His fingers grasp the money plug, and he can pull that plug whenever he hears something he does not like.

Always consider the source, even if--for now--the source might be saying something we might like.

[OccupyManny]

27. Good for him I guess

I'm not totally comfortable about this deal given Al has been against oil companies and this network is funded by oil interests. In any event he's done great work on climate change and inspired me CBS my family to be more conscious of conservation. We now use cloth shopping bags, have installed solar panels and don't buy any products that use plastic.

[ensemble]

32. I have no problem with Al cashing in...

but will this effect Current's ability to speak out on climate change going forward? I would assume that the general programming will remain the same or similar - Current's value is the progressive news shows and documentaries.
Unless AJ is just using this as a backdoor to access cable TV in the US.

[djean111]

28. This is just part of the stupid "class warfare" meme

that conservatives have always been trying to push. In their pointy little heads, they believe that all liberals care about is hating people with lots of money. So they are either dumbfounded or deliberately feigning puzzlement when liberals fail to condemn another liberal for having or making money.
I have seen conservatives on other boards fling out the fact that Al has money sneeringly, as if we liberals are supposed to condemn him. It is one of their many mental blocks, carefully planted, that they think liberals believe all rich people are bad. That notion rallies them, and sort of comforts them, because then they can screech class warfare to their minions.

It is what people do to GET their money is the problem - did Al put lots of workers out of a job in order to earn more money? They will do that, even if it is just for one quarter. Does Al deliberately pollute our food, our air, our water, our land, in order to squeeze a few extra dimes out of manufacturing costs?

Whether deliberate (because it feeds the freeper types) or not, conservatives feel it is all about amassing money, which of course results in poor people, for them, and they are just trying to drive another wedge between liberals and liberals with money.
Reading this thread, evidently it is not working.

[MADem]

39. There it is! You got it in a very nice series of paragraphs.

I would like to associate myself with your remarks!

[harmonicon]

62. I half agree with you, but half disagree.

I'm afraid the part where I disagree is at the heart of the problem here.

I don't think it's that how people get their money that is the problem. There is an insidious idea in our culture that one's money is/was dependent on their actions, whether it be from selling something, getting a contract worth x dollars, or won at a casino. The reality is that the money comes from the entire economy and culture. The fact that we have a fiat currency should further drive this point home.

I think the problem is that we DO criticize the business someone is involved with the get the money they do, when it's all part and parcel of the reigning system. The people making money while also polluting air, water, food, etc. are making that money because people are allowing them to by the part they play in the society. The question is, what do we as a society feel we are getting in return for this? We get angry, because we are short changed.

Instead of criticizing and individual financial decision, perhaps we should criticize the system. In our laws, we determine what is profitable. If we had actual progressive taxation and social welfare programs, I suspect that either a) we wouldn't feel short-changed by many financial decision, or b) those decisions would not be made, because the return would no longer be worth it to the individual.

[djean111]

66. Yes - I agree - but - the system has already been bought.

It has already been subverted. Look who gets appointed to the positions who decide this sort of thing - Monsanto people, lobbyists, Wall Streeters, whatever. Look where elected officials go when their terms expire. Look at the money poured into influencing laws and regulations.
Both sides kowtow to corporations and banks. Appointing Geithner and Welch. And this is "our" side.
And it seems any mention of a different party or whatever is called Obama-hating.
The people making money while polluting are not gaming the system - they own the system, and I see nothing going on in Washington today that will change that.

In a way, what difference does it make if people pay their 6.2% instead of 4.2% into SS if the amount they are paying from keeps shrinking - and I see nothing today that will change that. The entire fabricated kabuki drama in Washington just preserves the status quo at best - it does not make anything any better for workers. The little details in that fabulous cliff avoidance - money for fucking NASCAR? The whole system is a barrel of reeking pork that would astound Sinclair Lewis.

Hey, let's see someone propose - on TV, out loud, as a real starting point - an actual living wage instead of a minimum wage that can't support someone.
Single payer. Or lower the Medicare age. Raise the SS cap. Raise the SS payout. Put money right into the economy.
The GOP proudly runs candidates who say they will do away with the EPA.
Right now, the EPA is just quietly trundling along, being mostly ineffectual. Same with FDA, in my opinion. The corporations run those things.
And the answer is always that well, Congress is intransigent, ya know. So sad.

So - where do we start?

(Sorry for the Sunday morning rant.)

[harmonicon]

68. Being well rested, I've already put out a few Sunday morning rants today.

I don't exactly know where we start, but it's not true that there are zero voices for these things. We do have people like Sanders in the senate. Ultimately, what we really have is our vote and our voice. I think we have a better chance of appealing to other poor people about how to exercise their vote and voice than we do in hoping and praying that those with money will just "do the right thing."

[Warren Stupidity]

30. Democrats making money is always bad news.

[Firebrand Gary]

31. I hope he builds a wind farm with that, a big one!

I say that jokingly, but now that I say, sounds like a good idea!

[Nye Bevan]

35. I have no problem with that (nt)

[Tom Jeff]

43. Nobody has problem

with making the money. The issue I heard was he sold to a company owned by Saudi OIL company rather than selling to an american for more money.

[MADem]

45. He sold it to an entity owned by the guy who rules Qatar, which is where USA has a large base.

No Saudis were involved in this sale.

No American made a comparable offer.

[Tom Jeff]

46. So

no Oil money was involved? What did GB offer?

[MADem]

47. Who said no "oil money" was involved?

Last edited Sat Jan 5, 2013, 03:01 PM - Edit history (1)

No SAUDIS were involved.

Glen Beck, Bullshitter Extraordinaire, likely had more talk than cash available to him.

You can try googling to see if you can come up with that figure, and post it here, if you'd like.

On edit--kinda tough to google with a mouthful of pizza. That was quick--good job, MIRT!

[djean111]

53. What does it matter what GB offered?

This wasn't a sale at Christie's.
Looks like Gore didn't want to sell to the GB ideology.
And America is, as far as I know, an oil-rich country, so I don't think that can be used as any sort of (pointless) factor.
It would have been very disappointing to me if Gore had sold to GB, really. I don't consider that I inhabit the same America that Beck does.
I am really looking forward to seeing what Al Jazeera does with Current.
And I don't think it was possible for Gore to keep it going with such low viewership, which means few sponsors.
I believe any "outrage" is manufactured.

[GoCubsGo]

75. Beck couldn't afford it.

Beck doesn't have the half billion dollars, or whatever it was Al Jazeera paid Gore. Randi Rhodes was talking about this Friday. She said Beck is only worth about $40 or 50 million, nowhere near what Current eventually sold for. That's not to say Gore would sell it to him if he had the money. I doubt he would.

[harmonicon]

63. Huh?

Al Jazeera 1. isn't Saudi, and 2. isn't owned by an oil company.

[LiberalLovinLug]

51. I don't fault Al for making money but.......

just like Arianna Huffington, someone left of center, slight though it was, relinquished control of her voice and influence in a sea of conservative hate propaganda to cash out to AOL.

Different circumstances but similar results. Huffington Post will slowly veer right. Its already noticeable, since she sold out, the increase in right wing contributors on there. With Current, it won't veer right but it will be blocked and censored by the media outlets in the US because of the ingrained xenophobia of all things Middle Eastern. So in effect a voice is lost, and Al would have seen that coming.

Although its not in the same arena, it would be nice if one of them would have traveled the road (so far) of people like Craig Newmark of Craigslist who resists the temptation for the big payout to commercial interests in service to the public good.

[patrice]

54. Profit in and of itself is not a bad thing. It's how it's used that matters.

Profit for profit's sake is evil.

Profit in service to the workers and other people is good.

I think we cantrust Al Gore to do the right things with that money.

[harmonicon]

65. I completely disagree.

I think this is an insidious and poisonous idea, as I've commented on earlier in the thread.

We should not simply set up and economy and a legal system where we cross our fingers and hope the two will work together for our best interests due to the whim of an individual.

We have the power to not simply have to trust that someone making a profit will "do the right thing." We can choose to legislate a system where the right thing is done, no matter what choice a single individual may make.

[ZRT2209]

58. hopefully he will apply it to another progressive venture

or he could give it to me!

[John_UAC]

69. Spam deleted by NRaleighLiberal (MIR Team)

[marshall]

70. Making as much money as possible is the America way

And irony is subjective.

[crazyjoe]

74. how the f is current work 500 mil ? half a billion for a station nobody watches????

[riverbendviewgal]

79. starting out your first day so nicely, eh?

can you provide a link for your claim?

[eilen]

80. I'm of 2 minds on this deal

note, he did have a 20% stake in the company.

First: Glenn Beck wanted to buy the station but was quickly and soundly rejected.

Second: They sold the station at great profit to Al Jazeera, which, while a solid news outlet, is owned by the state of Qatar--of which the largest source of wealth is derived from oil exports.

which is kind of hypocritical to personally profit from oil for a guy who is such an avid environmentalist.

But, he pissed off Glenn Beck, who could not handle such an affront to his ego leading him to incoherently rant about how Al Gore, the former vice president is "UnAmerican" for selling to Al Jazeera instead of him. How the decision was made on ideology (what is wrong with that?). I highly doubt Beckster was offering the same amount of money as Al Jazeera but then he doesn't have tankers full of petroleum funding his activities, just a bunch of teabilly internet subscribers

Kind of comical. Would Glenn Beck sell a media outlet to Al Gore? Probably not.