Of course, until 5 years from now, they simply frown their faces about an article and editors get the message.
Maybe it is like you said, maybe it will end like this:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/dec/12/newscorporatio... "I picked up the phone and called Murdoch and said that I was speaking not as a shareholder, but as a viewer of Fox. I said that these are not Muslim riots, they are riots," Campaign Middle East magazine quoted the prince as saying.
"He investigated the matter and called Fox and within half an hour it was changed from 'Muslim riots' to 'civil riots'."
Money does strange things.
What the investor says is worth nothing. They are buying a media company that would let them significantly influence in the market.
(For example, it started peddling "Mueller needs to resign" nonsense after the indictments under easily falsifiable excuses.)
[See https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/30/murdoch-fox-muelle...]
Or that in case some editor gets the bright idea to write something critical about cause near and dear Kochs that a call from that equity development arm will not change editor's mind?
People of all political stripes buy media to have influence first. Making money is a bonus.
PS It would be interesting to see how WaPo changed stance after Bezos bought it.
You typed a lot of words when the truth is obvious. Billionaires don't acquire media outlets to make money (directly).
"Steve Lombardo, a spokesman for Koch Industries, also said that the Kochs had no plans to take an active role in the expanded company. “This is a passive financial investment made through our equity development arm,” Mr. Lombardo said. The company’s role in the transaction, he said, was similar to that of a bank."
Regardless of what you think of the Koch brothers, this appears to be a mundane deal sensationalized by the specter of the Koch brothers.