By now, the term “media racket” has become a buzzword, but the word “rent” is not.
A few years ago, when I wrote about the “renting of news” and how that can be used to describe the media industry, I was describing a very different phenomenon.
Today, the “media rent” is often defined as “the cost of acquiring and maintaining media content,” but it is a term used to characterize an entire ecosystem of services, platforms, and platforms for which there are no profits.
That ecosystem, which includes media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and YouTube, as well as many of the traditional print, broadcast, and social media services, is dominated by a few large, highly paid corporations.
And this ecosystem is dominated not by the large media companies that own and operate their platforms, but by the many small media companies whose business models are dependent on the success of the large companies.
The “rental of news,” as it is often described, is the system of compensation that enables large media corporations to continue their profitable enterprises even when their competitors are competing for the same audience and resources.
The media rent has been a dominant force in the media business for a long time.
It is not that new or unexpected; the rent was already in place, but it was not used much to achieve a single end.
It has also never been used as an alternative to the profits generated by the companies that run the media.
And it has never been applied to those media companies with the largest audiences or the most resources.
Instead, the media rent is used to compensate large media corporates for their enormous investments in the creation of content, the advertising they receive from advertisers, and the social and political reach they have.
Today’s news organizations are not the same as the newspapers they once were.
And they are not even the same media companies they used to be.
They are increasingly becoming platforms for social and ideological groups that do not exist in the traditional sense of the word.
They do not have to be owned by a media company that sells advertising.
They can be run by individuals or by organizations that can attract large audiences.
And their platforms can be owned, operated, and managed by anyone with a small stake in the company.
The new paradigm for media The news media industry is a “rentier-oriented” industry.
The major news media corporations are now owned and controlled by the very same companies that made them up.
The news organizations they once depended on have all but disappeared.
Many of the news organizations that once supported the traditional press, like the New York Times, have either closed or abandoned the traditional news media.
As a result, many of their readership has shifted to social media, online platforms, video streaming services, and news blogs that often include little or no information about the sources, sources of news, or sources of information they provide.
In fact, it is not even clear that the traditional media companies are making a profit anymore.
As the number of paid advertisers has declined and the number that can afford to buy advertising in print has increased, so too have the advertising rates.
The profits of the largest media corporations have also declined.
For instance, the revenue of Fox News has declined over the past few years from $5 billion in 2005 to $3.2 billion in 2016, while the revenue generated by CNN and MSNBC has increased from $2.3 billion in 2006 to $4.4 billion in 2017.
It’s worth noting that these numbers include revenues from paid ad sales on Fox News, as the network does not disclose them.
But even if you exclude those revenues, the loss of the Fox News revenue has been the largest in the history of the network.
Similarly, the Fox-owned Washington Post lost more than half of its advertising revenue in 2017, which was more than the loss generated by any other news organization.
The decline in revenues from Fox News and CNN has been so large that the Post’s entire news division was shut down.
This is not a surprising result, as both organizations rely on advertising from large media conglomerates that are heavily invested in the products they provide and on a wide variety of other sources of revenue.
But the newsrooms that once provided the news for millions of Americans are now dominated by those same large media moguls.
And while the news outlets have had a tough time competing in this new marketplace, they are still a vital part of the media ecosystem, even if the companies are not as profitable as they once once were, as is evident from their declining revenue.
And that is exactly why they should be paid.
The reason the news media companies have to pay for their news is because the news they provide has changed over the last decades.
As people’s news became increasingly fragmented and personal, as information became more fragmented and subjective, as technology expanded, as new forms of media have emerged, and as technology became more ubiquitous, the role of the press has changed.
The role of a journalist Today’s journalists
