The editors at Forbes magazine like to list things — the richest people in the world, the highest paid athletes, the highest paid celebrities, the best colleges, the most valuable sports teams.
This year there is a new entry onto the Forbes list of the world’s most powerful people — you might have met him, you might’ve seen him in public, you might know someone who works for him.
For the fourth year Putin is No. 1, but Trump is No. 2, while Obama lagged down at No. 48. Obama did not warrant a mention in the story about the list. That story does mention the 11 new names on the list — including the new prime minister of the UK and the vice-president elect.
Landing on the list at No. 72 out of 74 is Las Vegas’ own Sheldon Adelson, CEO of Las Vegas Sands and owner of the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
The squib on Adelson notes that the 83-year-old Las Vegan is worth $31.3 billion and is on a number of other Forbes lists, including wealthiest.
The piece relates: “Political heavyweight Sheldon Adelson pledged allegiance to Donald Trump in May 2016, but ultimately promised the Republican nominee only $5 million in financial support — peanuts by Adelson’s standards. (He spent more than $100 million trying to elect a Republican during the last election.) This year he focused on congressional candidates instead, doling out $40 million to Republicans across the country. Adelson is making bigger investments in his business, Las Vegas Sands, the largest casino company in America. In September 2016 Sands opened its new Paris-themed Macau resort — a $2.9 billion bet on the world’s largest gambling market, which has suffered in recent years as Chinese officials cracked down on corruption. Las Vegas Sands itself has been under scrutiny for its relationships with government officials in Macau. In April 2016, it agreed to pay a $9 million penalty to the SEC to settle charges that it violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. One month earlier, Adelson named his son-in-law CFO of Las Vegas Sands. The son of immigrants from Lithuania and Wales, Adelson grew up sleeping on the floor of a Boston tenement and bought his first newspaper corner with a $200 loan from his uncle when he was 12.”
It makes no mention of his latest newspaper investment, which was considerably more than $200. That apparently had nothing to do with him qualifying as one of the most powerful people in the world.
Sheldon Adelson as portrayed on Forbes magazine website.
4TH ST8 
I don’t always agree with Mr. Adelson or you Tom but, I admire and respect him and you too!
IN 1972 W. Clement Stone, a wealthy businessman, gave $2m to Richard Nixon’s presidential campaign. The cheque, worth $11.4m today, provoked outrage and led to calls for campaign-finance reform. http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21689522-network-wealthy-donors-has-mission-push-politics-right-avengers
Now, Adelson spends more than $100 million, and nobody bats an eye. Our moral values appear to have changed.
Moral values? Was there a quid pro quo?
“When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them, and they are there for me.” He added, “And that’s a broken system.”
There is always a quid pro quo.
Read Dark Money and learn.
Naw, more like read “Dark Money” and remain skeptical or become brainwashed!
“These media sources are highly biased toward liberal causes. They utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
Notes: The New Yorker is an American magazine of reportage, commentary, criticism, essays, fiction, satire, cartoons, and poetry. It is published by Condé Nast. Started as a weekly in 1925, the magazine is now published 47 times annually, with five of these issues covering two-week spans. Typical left wing bias. (Wikipedia)”
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-yorker/
If you think this site is another rightwingnuttery fake news hoax, type “Breitbart” into their search field! I doubledog dare ya!
Oh..neglected to mention, Jane Mayer is a writer for the “New Yorker”. Hence the research for bias.
Consider that if any of the facts reported by Mayer are false, the billionaires she has exposed have abundant resources to sue her for libel. You might also consider criticizing the author rather than assuming guilt by association. After all, George Will wrote for Newsweek for many years. But let’s look at the author. In the Wikipedia article about Mayer, it says,
“Mayer covered the Obama administration’s prosecution of whistleblowers with an article about former National Security Agency (NSA) official Thomas Drake. Despite Obama’s campaign promises of transparency, Mayer wrote, his administration “has pursued leak prosecutions with a surprising relentlessness.”[21] She won the Polk Award for the article, and the judges said her article helped expose “prosecutorial excess” and “helped lead to all major charges against Drake being dropped.”
“In 2009, Mayer covered the Obama administration’s use of drones. “The number of drone strikes has risen dramatically since Obama became President”, she wrote. Her article described errors, ethical concerns, and potential unintended consequences in the increased use of drone strikes.”
For more than a decade, Mayer has written about money in politics, covering and criticizing both liberals and conservatives. In 1997, she wrote an article about “dubious Democratic Party fundraising tactics leading to the 1996 election.” The article described how the Clinton campaign “marketed the prestige and glamour of the Presidency as never before.”[24]
“In 2004, she wrote an article on George Soros and other activist billionaires who sought “to use their fortunes to engineer the defeat of President George W. Bush in the 2004 election.” The article described Soros’s “extreme measures” and how his “outsized financial role in the election” has “stirred alarm.”
In 2012, Mayer wrote an article about President Obama’s efforts to raise money from liberal billionaires, and the decision of his campaign to flip-flop and encourage fundraising from super PACs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Mayer
This hardly sounds like the perennially biased writer you claim her to be. So far as I can tell, your only evidence of bias is that she writes for the New Yorker, a highly respected, accurate, but left of center publication. Can you find something more convincing? Hint: There are 378 references in the back of the book. Maybe you can find some of them to be suspect?
BTW, her list of awards and honors from the same Wikipedia article:
Mayer was awarded the 2008 John Chancellor Award for Excellence in Journalism for her investigative report leading to her book The Dark Side. The Award, presented annually by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, is given to reporters for “distinguished cumulative accomplishments.” In presenting the award, Nicholas Lemann, dean of the journalism school and one of the nine members of the award committee, noted that Mayer and her fellow winner, Andrew C. Revkin (science reporter for The New York Times) “set the gold standard for journalists, and we have benefited tremendously from their dedication and hard work.”[50] She also has won the Ridenhour Book Prize[51] and the New York Public Library’s Helen Bernstein Book Award for Excellence in Journalism.[52]
Mayer was a finalist in the National Magazine Awards for 2007 for her nonfiction piece in The New Yorker entitled The Black Sites,[53] which was subsequently collected in The Best American Magazine Writing 2008, published by Columbia University Press, and edited by Jacob Weisberg.[54]
In 2008, Mayer was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship in connection with her work on her third book, The Dark Side.[55][56] In 2009 Mayer was awarded the Hillman Prize and the J. Anthony Lukas Book Prize for The Dark Side.[57][58]
Mayer was awarded the George Polk Award for Magazine Reporting in 2011 for her investigative reporting on the United States Department of Justice prosecution of NSA whistleblower Thomas Andrews Drake. Mayer’s article in The New Yorker[59] told the story of how Drake faced up to 35 years in federal prison for communicating non-classified information about an NSA surveillance program known as “Trailblazer” to Baltimore Sun reporter Siobahn Gorman, who wrote a prize-winning article about it.[60]
Drake originally was arrested in an investigation of who had been the source for the Pulitzer Prize-winning 2005 New York Times report on warrantless wiretapping,[61] although eventually, Thomas Tamm, not Drake or any other NSA employee was revealed to have been the source for that story.[62] After Mayer’s story was published, all ten of the felony charges in Drake’s original indictment were dropped,[63] and he pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor count of violating rules regarding the retention of classified materials.[64]
In 2012, Mayer received the Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting for her coverage of North Carolina state politics.
Accolades and awards don’t change bias, they acknowledge and support it.
What a weak reply! Is that the best you can do?
All I needed to do.
Awards change nothing about bias. They support and encourage it.
Ignoring my most salient points doesn’t make them go away.
Back at ya, Rincon.