Brainless Democrat Cartoons

Why Fox News is Losing Viewers

The audience for cable news shrank in 2010, according to a Pew Research Center report, with viewership for the dominant Fox News declining by 11 percent, CNN plummeting by 37 percent, and MSNBC down 5 percent. "It's not that people are not watching cable," says Amy S. Mitchell, deputy director of the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. "They're just not turning to news as much." The trend was particularly deflating for Fox News, which had been on a ratings growth spurt since 2007. Is this the end of Fox's meteoric climb in the ratings, and, if so, why?
Yes, viewers are finally getting wise: The experts are chalking this up to competition from the internet, says Ellen at News Hounds, but that's only part of it. Online news has been around for years. The main reason for the cable news networks' troubles — particularly those of the unfair and unbalanced Fox News — is that what they offer is not really news. "It's more about infotainment or political theater." 
"Fox and other cable news networks lose big chunks of audience"
Wait, Fox is still trampling CNN and MSNBC: Fox News isn't the one with the ratings problems, says Fox host Bill O'Reilly in the Boston Herald. Last month in primetime, we were the second highest rated channel on cable, behind only the USA network. "MSNBC came in 26th, CNN 29th. Not good for them." They could both could use "a program host who is filled with tiger blood." Charlie Sheen, MSNBC needs you.
"Low-rated shows need lowlife Charlie Sheen"
The world isn't supplying enough actual news: There just isn't enough real news out there to fill "three always-on news networks," says Doug Mataconis at Outside the Beltway. Devoting an entire cable channel to news "started out as a great idea by Ted Turner," but it "has turned into something far different." The conservative Fox, and its liberal mirror-image MSNBC, are just "blowhard stations" cranking out "propaganda." No wonder people are finding something better to do with their evenings.

Coverage of President Trump dominates the media, and most of it’s negative

Donald Trump dominates the elite media's news coverage, with much of the coverage negative, "setting a new standard for unfavorable press coverage of a president," according to a new study of the press via Harvard University.
The study from the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy exhibits a firm if still intriguing grasp of the obvious when it comes to a certain slice of press coverage.
Indeed, as tends to be the case with such dissections, it analyzes coverage by those media that academia (and the press itself) tend to be most drawn to: The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, the primary newscasts of CBS, CNN, Fox News and NBC. It includes Europe's Financial Times, BBC and Germany’s ARD.
There's nothing about a vast array of other outlets, especially news outlets, that tend to have far greater audiences, especially in local markets. How much time have they devoted to Trump and what's been the editorial thrust?
Still, to the extent that a narrow slice sets influential news agendas, the report is useful as it scrutinizes coverage of Trump's first 100 days and finds he was "the topic of 41 percent of all news stories — three times the amount of coverage received by previous presidents."
"Trump has received unsparing coverage for most weeks of his presidency, without a single major topic where Trump’s coverage, on balance, was more positive than negative, setting a new standard for unfavorable press coverage of a president," reads the report by Thomas Patterson, a respected government and press analyst.
"Fox was the only news outlet in the study that came close to giving Trump positive coverage overall, however, there was variation in the tone of Fox’s coverage depending on the topic."
Patterson's larger historical analysis offers the helpful reminder that bashing the media is not a new phenomenon for a president. There's a long history and, while the report argues that Trump is different by being so public and so obviously relishing a fight, it notes how others, notably Richard Nixon, threatened the press with serious injury (in Nixon's case, the never-executed threat of yanking broadcast licenses).
The report portrays a media that was initially solicitous to Trump, later more critical and, now, distinctly combative. And, all along, he was fascinating and clearly a positive influence on ratings and circulation, especially on the digital side of elite newspapers.
"Our studies of 2016 presidential election coverage found that Trump received more news coverage than rival candidates during virtually every week of the campaign. The reason is clear enough. Trump is a journalist’s dream."
"Reporters are tuned to what’s new and different, better yet if it’s laced with controversy. Trump delivers that type of material by the shovel full. Trump is also good for business. News ratings were slumping until Trump entered the arena. Said one network executive, '[Trump] may not be good for America, but [he’s] damn good for [us].'"
The report serves as a window, too, onto the mentality of journalists — in ways that might ruffle Fox News and other exemplars of conservative conventional wisdom in portraying the "mainstream" press as driven by liberal bias.
"Although journalists are accused of having a liberal bias, their real bias is a preference for the negative."
Patterson harkens to the Vietnam War and Watergate eras in arguing that an anti-political mindset overrode personal political ideology and has remained in place.
"Journalists’ incentives, everything from getting their stories on the air to acquiring a reputation as a hard-hitting reporter, encourage journalists to focus on what’s wrong with politicians rather than what’s right."
And there's this interesting empirical tidbit: "Of the past four presidents, only Barack Obama received favorable coverage during his first 100 days, after which the press reverted to form."
Trump coverage has accelerated what had been a norm, it appears, setting what the report deems "a new standard for negativity." And that's despite the disproportionate amount of the time that Trump himself is quoted, which is seemingly unusual in a world in which politicians tend to bitch that their low esteem partly reflects the press not airing or giving space to their own declarations.
Reliance on Trump's own comments aside, "Of news reports with a clear tone, negative reports outpaced positive ones by 80 percent to 20 percent. Trump’s coverage was unsparing. In no week did the coverage drop below 70 percent negative and it reached 90 percent negative at its peak."
The report also takes subject categories, such as immigration and the economy, to assess how they've been handled.
There are some differences — immigration was overwhelmingly harsh, economic coverage not nearly as much — but one common denominator is that while most of the elite press was negative, Fox News was less so (interestingly, The Wall Street Journal resembled the others more than it did Fox).
At the same time, the elite media caricature of Fox as unremitting Trump shill gets its comeuppance under this more empirical lens (that also includes interesting results on the dominance of Republican newsmakers in commenting upon Trump).
Yes, Fox gave Trump favorable coverage but not overwhelmingly so. By this analysis, the "split was 52 percent negative to 48 percent positive." Liberals' assumption that Fox is handmaiden to the White House Press Office needs more than one asterisk.
No surprise, Fox coverage differed as a function of the topic at hand, with some very negative, some very positive. And, "As was true at the other outlets, Fox’s reporters found few good things to say about the public and judicial response to Trump’s executive orders banning Muslim immigrants or the collapse of the House of Representatives’ first attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare."
"Fox’s reporting on Trump’s appointees and Russian involvement in the election was also negative in tone."
The report ultimately demurs from concluding if the press has been unfair. But it seems to strain to straddle a fence that includes its own deep suspicions (perhaps typical in academic halls these days) about Trump and the arguable implication that negative coverage is warranted.
"If a mud fight with Trump will not serve the media’s interests, neither will a soft peddling of his coverage. Never in the nation’s history has the country had a president with so little fidelity to the facts, so little appreciation for the dignity of the presidential office, and so little understanding of the underpinnings of democracy."
Yes, it agrees, the credibility of the press is low. But, it also underscores, "the Trump presidency is not the time for the press to pull back" even while conceding, "the sheer level of negative coverage gives weight to Trump’s contention, one shared by his core constituency, that the media are hell bent on destroying his presidency."
It concludes with brief reference to one seeming legacy of 2016 campaign coverage: the press missing the concerns of "Main Street."
"The lesson of the 2016 election has been taken to heart by many journalists. Since Trump’s inauguration, the press has been paying more attention to Main Street. But judging from the extent to which Trump’s voice has dominated coverage of his presidency, the balance is still off."
Of course, that might also apply to elite academics, too.

Byron York: Harvard study: CNN, NBC Trump coverage 93 percent negative

How negative was press coverage of President Trump's first 100 days in office? Far more than that of Barack Obama, George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton, according to a new report from the Harvard Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy.
The Harvard scholars analyzed the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and the main newscasts (not talk shows) of CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC during Trump's initial time in office. They found, to no one's surprise, that Trump absolutely dominated news coverage in the first 100 days. And then they found that news coverage was solidly negative — 80 percent negative among those outlets studied, versus 20 percent positive.
The numbers for previous presidents: Barack Obama, 41 percent negative, 59 percent positive; George W. Bush, 57 percent negative, 43 percent positive; and Bill Clinton, 60 percent negative, 40 percent positive.

Accusations of bias aside, it's simply a fact that a number of negative things happened in Trump's opening 100 days. The Russia investigation, for example, was a source of endless criticism from Democrats and other Trump opponents. The travel ban executive order led to intense argument and losses for the administration in the courts. The healthcare debacle created more negative coverage because it was a major screwup and a setback for both Trump and House Republicans.
That said, the coverage of some news organizations was so negative, according to the Harvard study, that it seems hard to argue that the coverage was anywhere near a neutral presentation of facts. Assessing the tone of news coverage, the Harvard researchers found that CNN's Trump coverage was 93 percent negative, and seven percent positive. The researchers found the same numbers for NBC.
Others were slightly less negative. The Harvard team found that CBS coverage was 91 percent negative and 9 percent positive. New York Times coverage was 87 percent negative and 13 percent positive. Washington Post coverage was 83 percent negative and 17 percent positive. Wall Street Journal coverage was 70 percent negative and 30 percent positive. And Fox News coverage also leaned to the negative, but only slightly: 52 percent negative to 48 percent positive.
Ninety-three percent negative — that's a lot by anybody's standards. "CNN and NBC's coverage was the most unrelenting — negative stories about Trump outpaced positive ones by 13-to-1 on the two networks," the study noted. "Trump's coverage during his first 100 days set a new standard for negativity."
The Harvard study had plenty of criticism for Trump. "Never in the nation's history," the authors wrote, "has the country had a president with so little fidelity to the facts, so little appreciation for the dignity of the presidential office, and so little understanding of the underpinnings of democracy."
But the authors made clear that journalists are very much part of the problem. "At the same time, the news media need to give Trump credit when his actions warrant it," the study said:

The public's low level of confidence in the press is the result of several factors, one of which is a belief that journalists are biased. That perception weakens the press's watchdog role. One of the more remarkable features of news coverage of Trump's first 100 days is that it has changed few minds about the president, for better or worse. The nation's watchdog has lost much of its bite and won't regain it until the public perceives it as an impartial broker, applying the same reporting standards to both parties. The news media's exemplary coverage of Trump's cruise missile strike on Syria illustrates the type of even-handedness that needs to be consistently and rigorously applied.

The Harvard team is undoubtedly now studying coverage of Trump's second 100 days. (They issued reports on key periods in the presidential campaign, as well.) The question is, will anything change?

Witch Hunting Democrat Cartoons

Conservative Perspective Needed on Campuses

While college protesters continue to block conservative speakers, Lauren Noble is taking action to provide a conservative perspective in the education system.
Lauren Noble is the founder and executive director of the William F. Buckley Jr. Program at Yale University.
Noble started the program while a student after she saw there was an absence of a conservative perspective offered on campus.
“There is certainly a real trend of illiberal intolerance that I really think has expanded on campuses across the country not just at Yale. Of course, you’ve seen there’s headlines about dis-invitations and disruptions and now we’ve even seen violence break out on college campuses over guest speakers and that’s obviously quite troubling,” Noble said.
But Noble said despite these protests, there is still a demand for conservative ideology on college campuses.
And through the William F. Buckley Jr. Program, she is providing this education to both liberal and conservative college students.
Noble said if  we dismiss what’s happening on many college campuses it is at our own peril, because both conservatives and liberals benefit from a healthy exchange of ideas.

Trump denies asking Comey to drop probe, decries ‘witch hunt’

U.S. President Donald Trump, striking a defiant tone on Thursday after days of political tumult, denied asking former FBI Director James Comey to drop a probe into his former national security adviser and decried a “witch hunt” against him.
Trump’s terse denial followed reports by Reuters and other media about a memo written by Comey alleging that Trump made the request to close down the investigation into Michael Flynn and Russia in February. Trump fired Comey on May 9.
“No. No. Next question,” Trump told a news conference in the White House, when asked if he “in any way, shape or form” ever urged Comey to end the probe.
Comey’s dismissal last week set off a series of jarring developments that culminated on Wednesday in the Justice Department’s appointment of a special counsel to probe possible ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.
They included media reports that Trump discussed sensitive intelligence on the Islamic State militant group with Russia’s foreign minister.
In a pair of morning Twitter posts and at a later news conference, the Republican president described calls by some on the left for his impeachment as “ridiculous” and said he had done nothing to warrant criminal charges.
“The entire thing has been a witch hunt and there is no collusion between certainly myself and my campaign – but I can always speak for myself – and the Russians. Zero,” he told the news conference, standing alongside Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos.
In his earlier Twitter posts, Trump criticized the naming of former FBI Director Robert Mueller as a special counsel by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, an official he himself appointed.
“With all of the illegal acts that took place in the Clinton campaign & Obama Administration, there was never a special counsel appointed!” Trump wrote on Thursday morning.
He did not offer any evidence of such acts in his reference to former Democratic President Barack Obama and former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
“This is the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history!” Trump tweeted.
Democrats rejected Trump’s characterization.
“This is a truth hunt,” said Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar.
Russia has denied U.S. intelligence agencies’ conclusion that it interfered in the election campaign to try to tilt the vote in Trump’s favor. Trump has long bristled at the notion that Russia played any role in his November election victory over Clinton.
Trump fired Flynn on Feb. 14 for misleading Vice President Mike Pence about the extent of his conversations last year with Russia’s ambassador.
Reuters reported on Thursday that Flynn and other Trump campaign advisers were in contact with Russian officials and others with Kremlin ties in at least 18 calls and emails during the last seven months of the presidential race.
U.S. stocks recovered ground on Thursday as upbeat economic data emboldened investors to return to the market, a day after Wall Street saw the biggest selloff in eight months on worries the political turmoil could undermine Trump initiatives such as tax cuts that investors see as favoring economic growth.
DIVIDING THE COUNTRY
Rosenstein, the No. 2 Justice Department official, named Mueller amid mounting pressure in Congress for an independent investigation beyond existing FBI and congressional probes into the Russia issue.
Trump later told news anchors at the White House that Mueller’s appointment was a “very, very negative thing,” adding:
“I believe it hurts our country terribly, because it shows we’re a divided, mixed-up, not-unified country.”
Rosenstein briefed senators on Thursday but made no public comments. One of the attendees, speaking on condition of anonymity, described Rosenstein as anxious and nervous and said he drank multiple glasses of water “and spilled one.”
Afterward, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham told reporters that “everything he said was that you need to treat this investigation as if it may be a criminal investigation.”
A self-described friend of Comey’s wrote in a public blog post on Thursday that Comey had told him that he had rebuffed a Trump request for loyalty by promising only honesty.
“He also told me that Trump was perceptibly uncomfortable with this answer,” wrote Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a critic of Trump.
“And he said that ever since, the President had been trying to be chummy in a fashion that Comey felt was designed to absorb him into Trump’s world – to make him part of the team.”
Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill said Rosenstein told senators that he knew Comey would be fired before he wrote his letter accusing him of missteps as FBI director, including his handling of an election-year probe into Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.
The White House initially said last week that Trump was prompted to fire Comey after reading the Rosenstein letter. Trump later said he had already decided to dismiss him and was thinking of “this Russia thing.”
The New York Times reported on Thursday that Trump called Comey weeks after he took office on Jan. 20 and asked him when federal authorities were going to say Trump was not under investigation. It cited two people briefed on the call.
Comey told Trump he should not contact him directly about FBI investigations but follow procedure and have the White House counsel ask the Justice Department, which oversees the FBI, the Times reported.
A key issue Mueller may have to tackle is whether Trump has committed obstruction of justice, an offense that could be used in any effort in the Republican-led Congress to impeach him and remove him from office.
Asked about possible obstruction of justice, Republican House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan told reporters the special counsel would “follow the facts where ever they may lead” and that “it is premature to prejudge anything at this point.”

New ferry links North Korea and Russia despite U.S. calls for isolation

A new ferry between isolated North Korea and Russia docked for the first time at the Pacific port of Vladivostok on Thursday, in spite of U.S. calls for countries to curtail relations with Pyongyang over its nuclear and missile programs.
The launch of the weekly service linking Vladivostok and the North Korean port of Rajin also came despite North Korea’s test-firing of a new type of ballistic missile on Sunday that landed in the sea near Russia.
The ferry’s Russian operators say it is purely a commercial venture, but the service’s launch coincides with what some experts say is a drive by North Korea to build ties with Moscow in case its closest ally China turns its back.
The service is pitched at Chinese tourists wanting to travel by sea to the Pacific port of Vladivostok, according to the operators.
China has no ports on the Sea of Japan, so traveling to North Korea and on to Vladivostok is the quickest way of reaching Vladivostok by sea.
“It’s our business, of our company, without any state subsidies, involvement and help,” Mikhail Khmel, the deputy director of Investstroytrest, the Russia firm operating the ferry, told reporters.
The new ferry link comes in spite of recent calls by U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson for countries to fully implement U.N. sanctions and review their ties with North Korea to pressure it to give up its weapons programs.
“We call on all nations to fully implement U.N. Security Council Resolutions, and sever or downgrade diplomatic and commercial relations with North Korea,” a spokeswoman for the U.S. State Department, Katina Adams, said when asked about the new ferry service.
Adams noted Russia’s “obligation” under U.N. Security Council resolutions, “to inspect all cargo, including personal luggage, of any individual traveling to or from” North Korea.
Journalists were unable to see passengers disembarking from the North Korean-flagged vessel Mangyongbong at Vladivostok because Russian officials kept them away from the quayside, citing unspecified security reasons.
But Reuters television was able to speak to three passengers, who said they were representatives of Chinese tourism agencies.
One of the passengers showed a photograph on her smartphone she said had been taken on board. It showed a plaque with an inscription in Korean which, she said, bore the name of North Korea’s long-dead founder Kim Il Sung.
The United States has been discussing possible new U.N. sanctions on North Korea with China, which disapproves of North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to deliver them, but remains its main trading partner.
Washington is looking to toughen U.N. sanctions to cut off Pyongyang’s sources of funding and to block smuggling of materials needed for its weapons programs.
Russia, especially the port of Vladivostok, is home to one of the largest overseas communities of North Koreans, who send home much-needed hard currency.
To date, there are no signs of a sustainable increase in trade between Russia and North Korea, but Russia has taken a more benign stance toward Pyongyang that other major powers.
Speaking in Beijing this week, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Moscow was against North Korea’s nuclear program, but that the world should talk to Pyongyang instead of threatening it.
Asked about the ferry, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Thursday she “didn’t see a connection” between the new service and political issues.

Putin’s ex-wife linked to multi-million-dollar property business

The former wife of Russian president Vladimir Putin helped create and now supports a foundation that owns a historic Moscow property generating millions of dollars from tenants, a Reuters examination of property records has found.
The building was renovated with help from associates of Putin, and the rental income is paid to a private company owned by a person whose name is the same as the maiden name of Putin’s former wife, corporate records show.
The rent comes from Volkonsky House in central Moscow, which was an aristocrat’s home in pre-Soviet times and is now owned by The Center for the Development of Inter-personal Communications (CDIC). Lyudmila Putina helped set up the non-commercial foundation, according to a report in state newspaper Rossiiskaya Gazeta and two sources who worked with the center. Lyudmila was Putin’s wife from 1983 until their divorce, which was announced in 2013.
The foundation was created in 2002, and in September 2006 Rossiiskaya Gazeta described Lyudmila as a “trustee” of the organization. In an interview with the newspaper that year, she used the term “we” when discussing the foundation, and three sources currently familiar with the foundation’s work said Lyudmila supports a literary prize and publishing arm that the foundation runs.
The CDIC has offices in Volkonsky House, but most of the building is let out to tenants, including two big state banks, documents show.
The tenants pay rent to a company called Meridian, which is 99 per cent owned by a company called Intererservis, corporate and property records reviewed by Reuters in early May showed. Intererservis, according to a state register of corporate entities, has been wholly owned since 2014 by a woman called Lyudmila Alexandrovna Shkrebnyova – which is the maiden name of Putin’s former wife.
Reuters was unable to find documents confirming that Shkrebnyova and Putin’s ex-wife are the same person. But other connections, besides the name, point to the former first lady and the owner of Intererservis being the same person. A previous general director of Intererversis was Olga Alexandrovna Tsomayeva. Several Russian media reports refer to her as the sister of Putin’s former wife. Tsomayeva could not be reached for comment.
In addition, the other 1 percent of Meridian is owned by Tatiana Shestakova, who was the wife of Vasily Shestakov, an old friend and judo sparring partner of Putin, until the Shestakovs divorced in 2013. Shestakova, who also helped create the CDIC, according to the state registry of corporate entities, could not be reached for comment.
The Kremlin property department supervised the renovation work on the Volkonsky House in Moscow’s Vozdvizhenka Street, according to rental documents reviewed by Reuters, even though the building no longer belonged to the state at the time.
A source involved in the renovation said Lyudmila Putina, then still the president’s wife, visited Volkonsky House to inspect the work. “We all knew that the (Kremlin property) department was constantly overseeing the process,” said the source, who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity. “When Mrs Putin made an inspection visit, they immediately closed down the whole of Vozdvizhenka Street.”
The Russian bank VTB, one of the current tenants in Volkonsky House, alone pays more than $2 million in annual rent, according to a tender document posted on a government website in 2015.
Reuters was unable to establish the total income Meridian receives from renting out space in the Moscow property or what it pays to the CDIC foundation. The company’s accounts for 2015 show revenues of 225 million rubles ($3.89 million), but do not disclose where the money goes.
Reuters sought comment from Meridian and the CDIC, via letters, telephone calls and visits, but received no reply. The Kremlin press service did not respond to questions about the president’s former wife.
The arrangements appear to fit a pattern in Putin’s Russia, whereby people close to the president benefit from contracts, loans, grants or assets from state enterprises or entities closely linked to the Kremlin. Reuters has previously reported how Putin’s son-in-law, Kirill Shamalov, became a billionaire after marrying a daughter of the president by acquiring a large stake in a leading Russian gas and petrochemicals company. Reuters also reported how Shamalov acquired a substantial property in Biarritz, France, from a close associate of Putin.
Artur Ocheretny, described in Russian media as Shkrebnyova’s new husband since 2015, is the chairman of the management board of the CDIC. In 2014, after a low-profile career running a seafood business and an event-organizing company, he too became the owner of an Art Deco villa in a suburb of Biarritz, according to local sources. His villa is estimated by estate agents to be worth about 6 million euros.
Ocheretny did not respond to a request for comment passed to him via the CDIC.
HELPFUL FRIENDS
The building at 9 Vozdvizhenka Street is known as the Volkonsky House after its former owner General Nikolai Volkonsky, the grandfather of author Leo Tolstoy. In the 20th century, Sergei Yesenin, a popular poet, wrote some of his works there.
This historic site was later owned by the Russian Foreign Ministry, according to a 1992 presidential decree signed by Putin’s predecessor. By 2005, property records show, it had passed to a body called the Center for the Development of the Russian Language, which later changed its name to the Center for the Development of Inter-personal Communications.
Reuters was unable to establish on what terms the language center acquired the building. The agency that handles state property, Rosimushchestvo, did not respond to Reuters questions about the building.
The property was in need of renovation, and around 2005 major refurbishment was carried out. The president’s allies stepped in to help. The Konstantinovsky Foundation, which was set up soon after Putin became president to restore the Konstantinovsky Palace near Putin’s native St Petersburg, provided financial help, according to its website. The president often uses the palace to host foreign leaders.
Vladimir Kozhin, who from 2000 until 2014 was head of the Kremlin property department, was on the board of the Konstaninovsky Foundation at the time the renovation work was carried out on Volkonsky House. Kozhin remains on the board, which has at least one other associate of Putin on it. Neither the Konstantinovsky Foundation nor Kozhin, who is now a presidential aide, responded to requests for comment.
Yelena Krylova, a spokeswoman for the Kremlin property department, said she had no information about the department having been involved in the renovation.
The first phase of work was completed by 2005, according to property documents, and later an extra floor was added. Natalia Samover, a historian who campaigned against the addition, told Reuters: “The building has lost its historical appearance. We no longer have the Volkonsky House, we have an eyesore half a kilometer from the Kremlin.”
Volkonsky House now has 5,288 square meters of floor space available for rent, according to the state property register – an area slightly larger than the White House in Washington D.C.
VALUABLE TENANTS
Foundations such as the CDIC can be created for “social, charitable, cultural, educational, scientific and management objectives,” according to the Russian Justice Ministry. They can carry out entrepreneurial activity so long as it serves the purpose for which a foundation was created. 
For an undisclosed amount, the CDIC lets most of Volkonsky House to Meridian, which sublets out space in the property. VTB, one of Russia’s largest banks, rents 3,011 square meters, according to the 2015 tender document posted on the state procurement website. That document gives the value of the contract as 584 million rubles over a five year period, or $2.02 million per year.
Asked to comment, VTB said in a statement: “We rent these premises for the needs of the retail and corporate businesses of VTB group.”
Other tenants include state lender Sberbank; the Severstroygroup construction company, which has won defense ministry contracts; a travel agency; a sushi restaurant; and a Burger King outlet. Sberbank said it had rented space at market rates as part of its branch strategy; Severstroygroup did not respond to requests for comment.
Knight Frank, an agency that specializes in high-end real estate, said that current market rates in the building were about $600 per square meter per year. If all the leasable space in the building were let at that rate, it would generate annual revenue of $3.18 million.
Meridian’s income does not appear to go to its main owner, Intererservis, which reported revenues in 2015 of just 2.4 million rubles ($41,478) and a net profit of 1.76 million rubles ($30,417).
The CDIC’s most recent available accounts show that in 2015 its income from all sources was 343,350,000 rubles ($5.93 million). It was not clear what all those sources were.
In 2015 the CDIC spent 262,317,000 rubles ($4.53 million), according to the accounts, of which 3.4 percent was spent on social and charitable help, 6.5 percent on holding conferences and seminars, 22 percent on administrative costs and 29 percent on “other activities.” The remaining 39 percent was spent on acquiring fixed assets, stock and other property, and on “miscellaneous” items.
The CDIC did not respond to questions about the sources of its income and how it spent its money.
The Justice Ministry said the foundation had not made annual reports on its activities – as opposed to its financial accounts – publicly available, despite being required to do so by law. The ministry said the foundation had therefore been issued with a warning.

Anti-Trump Cry Baby Cartoons