The news sector may need technical staff, but it should also be feared.

Sunday night, we learn that Marc and Lynne Benioff have paid $ 190 million for Time, the weekly news magazine whose iconic red cover covers the news coverage for nearly a century. Marc Benioff is the CEO of Salesforce, the leading enterprise software manufacturer. He is known for his philanthropy and eccentricity, not to mention his eagerness to spread his political views, which tend to be socially liberal. It is estimated at over $ 6 billion.

The sale comes eight months after Meredith Corporation, the publisher of magazines like Better Homes and Gardens, Shape and Family Circle, and the owner of 17 radio stations, have finalized the purchase of Time Inc. for 2.8 billion dollars (with $ 650 million). funding from the private equity arm of conservative political donors Charles and David Koch), making the Iowa-based company the country's largest magazine publisher. While Meredith will retain Time Inc.'s publications such as Real Simple and People, he has placed Time, Fortune, Money and Sports Illustrated at auction – making it the latest media properties in search of a white knight savior. Time, at least, will become the most recent publication to support a new class of media barons who are also exploiting some of the world's most valuable companies: the technology executives.

It is natural to wonder what an industry increasingly funded by the winners of the US technology industry means for democracy and the independence of the Fourth Goods.

In 2012, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes bought the new (usually) center-left Republic for $ 2.1 million; Four years and more than 20 million dollars of investment later, he sold it. In 2013, Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon and currently the richest man in the world, bought the Washington Post for $ 250 million and invested funds to hire more journalists and invest in his efforts digital. Last year, Laurene Powell Jobs, widow of CEO and co-founder of Apple Steve Jobs, acquired a majority stake in the Atlantic, which is now the subject of many recruitments. Earlier this year, Patrick Soon-Shiong, a billionaire biotechnology executive, bought the Los Angeles Times for $ 500 million. There is now Benioff's time. In most cases, techno-billionaire ownership was probably the best scenario for the old publications in question, the other obvious alternative being the gradual decline in an increasingly uncertain digital media landscape. For these reasons – where the wealth is, where the need and the civic stamp are – the recent acquisition of Benioff will probably not be the last example of anybody exploiting the immense wealth of the technology sector for buy a media company.

But who is Marc Benioff? And what does it mean for this corner of American power to produce as many customers of a free press? This is not the first time that the titans of the American industry, for better or for worse, have used their fortune to support the social good, the media or others. Thousands of public libraries across the English speaking world have steel magnate Andrew Carnegie to thank for their existence. Railway magnates like Thomas Kearns and Henry Villard then bought newspapers at the turn of the 20th.^e century. The notion of technology investment in the media is not new either: to cite just one example, the magazine you read was founded by Microsoft. But the age of the ex-technician has become an out-of-school media baron East always in its infancy. And given the number of the biggest fortunes in the world between Seattle and Cupertino, California, it's natural to wonder what technology billionaire is going to attack the market and what industry is increasingly being funded by the winners of the industry and the independence of the Fourth Estate.

For its part, Benioff has become a household name in the Bay Area. Salesforce Tower, recently completed in San Francisco, is the tallest office skyscraper west of Chicago. The network of children's hospitals at the University of California San Francisco, which has several campuses, is named after him. He is known for outspokenness on some political issues, such as his threat to pull his business out of Indiana to protest a law making it easier to discriminate against homosexuals and his accounts by correcting wage inequalities at Salesforce. mention his vocal objections to the recent US immigration policy, despite the fact that Salesforce earns millions through contracts with US Customs and Border Patrol. Salesforce employees urged their CEO to abandon CPB contracts, but Benioff refused.

The founder of Salesforce and his wife say they have no plan to interfere in Time's daily operations and they are not looking for financial returns, even though Time is profitable. The print edition, which has more than 2 million subscribers, also does not seem to go anywhere. The couple will, however, try to help the publication continue the transition to digital.

A time belonging to Benioff is obviously better than, say, a time adjacent to Koch. For the moment, it's probably better than a time directly attributable to investors or a fund belonging to a capitalist-vulture hedge fund, as one of those who gutted some newspapers across the country. Look no further than what has happened since GOP megadon Sheldon Adelson bought the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The newspaper reportedly regularly killed or diluted critical articles about transactions between the casino and the real estate mogul. And at Alden Global Capital, the New York-based hedge fund, which has more than 50 newspapers across the country, dramatically cutting editorial jobs has become commonplace. On the contrary, this new generation of technology executives, now a media specialist, seems to be investing in the expansion of newsrooms while staying out of editorial operations.

There is no obvious reason to worry that this will change – even a cynic might conclude that someone like Jeff Bezos benefits much more from preserving the Washington Post as a trusted source Public and independent that by forcing the property made everyone happy – its leaders took a firm stance in negotiating salary increases and benefits with the Post Newsroom syndicate. And no matter who owns the publications, the fate of all media is directly related to the whims of the major Internet platforms, which direct the looks and advertising dollars in their own way. However, it is hard not to worry that an information industry increasingly owned by technology CEOs would at least have some incentive to sympathize with their world view. And this view of the world is closely related to how they made their money, largely by consolidating power over our public common goods, the Internet.

This was possible thanks to a huge regulatory restraint, a homogeneous investor culture that gives money to white men owned businesses, sometimes dependent on production via inhumane workers at the same time. foreign and well-paid technical staff in the United States. First, innovate and eliminate the negative consequences later on, tax avoidance, and an unconvincing commitment to ensure that their products are not used to perpetuate the ills of society. This moral health charter is perhaps no worse than today's media, but it's important to keep in mind, especially because in 2018 there's no better way to make a reputation only by buying a newspaper. Meanwhile, there are few more important topics for the media than the means, big and small, that technology and the Internet are disrupting something they did not want to disrupt: the body politic.

So, yes, supporting journalism through technological moguls is probably better than alternatives. And finding a way to support journalism by trying to run its online economy is a difficult but not impossible task that requires owners to be patient. But it will be important for news agencies to keep in sight who is hoarding power and what they could do with it. They must fulfill their responsibilities and those of their peers, even if it means that the men and women who write the checks are uncomfortable.