Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

The real reason the Mainstream Media is dead

Much virtual ink has been spilled over the decline of the mainstream media, measured by circulation, advertising revenue, or a general sense of irrelevance. Usual explanations relate to the changing economics of news gathering and publication, the growth of social media, demographic and cultural shifts, and the like. These are all important but the main issue, I believe, is the characteristics of the product itself. Specifically, news consumers increasingly recognize that the mainstream media outlets are basically public relations services for government agencies, large companies, and other influential organizations.

Journalists do very little actual journalism — independent investigation, analysis, reporting. They are told what stories are “important” and, for each story, there is an official Narrative, explaining the key issues and acceptable opinions on these issues. Journalists’ primary sources are off-the-record, anonymous briefings by government officials or other insiders, who provide the Narrative.

A news outlet that deviates from the Narrative by doing its own investigation or offering its own interpretation risks being cut off from the flow of anonymous briefings (and, potentially, excluded from the White House Press Corps and similar groups), which means a loss of prestige and a lower status. Basically, the mainstream news outlets offer their readers a neatly packaged summary of the politically correct positions on various issues. In exchange for sticking to the Narrative, they get access to official sources. Give up one, you lose the other. Readers are beginning to recognize this, and they don’t want to pay.

Nowhere is this situation more apparent than the mainstream reporting on budget sequestration. The Narrative is that sequestration imposes large and dangerous cuts — $85 billion, a Really Big Number! — to essential government services, and that the public reaction should be outrage at the President and Congress (mostly Congressional Republicans) for failing to “cut a deal.” You can picture the reporters and editors grabbing their thesauruses to find the right words to describe the cuts — “sweeping,” “drastic,” “draconian,” “devastating.” In virtually none of these stories will you find any basic facts about the budget, which are easily found on the CBO’s website, e.g.:

(Cont)

by Anonymousreply 11408/25/2013

I wish I could say I'm surprised we've been misinformed.

It's been a very long time since I've trusted the Mainstream Media. They deserve to fail if they're unwilling to clean up their act. It's a clear case of supply and demand. There's no longer enough demand for what they're supplying.

by Anonymousreply 303/10/2013

What you say about the MSM is correct. However, your conclusions about sequestration are misleading.

Since the debt continues to grow, the overall percentage of the budget that goes to servicing the debt is also growing. That means even if the dollar amount of the budget remains the same, the amount of money left after paying the interest on the debt is actually shrinking.

We have to increase the budget every year just to have the same amount of money to spend on non-interest items.

Sequestration will result in the need for real cuts to programs.

by Anonymousreply 503/10/2013

Reporters existed back in the day. Today we have "repeaters" who reguritate what a press release tells them.

by Anonymousreply 603/10/2013

In the 90s, Hunter S Thompson warned us about "briefings" and how they could be used to include or exclude reporters. Joan Didion wrote of "The Narrative" back in the late 80s.

It's been going on for a long time...

by Anonymousreply 703/10/2013

It is the fault of the public which is not willing to pay for news.

by Anonymousreply 803/10/2013

The New York Times gave its publisher a $24 million severance package last year and then gave buyouts to 30 staff members and got rid of its environmental beat. More layoffs are on the fault. It's not the reporters' fault. It's the greed on top and the willingness of the public to put up with shit.

by Anonymousreply 903/10/2013

[quote]It is the fault of the public which is not willing to pay for news.

Was it really any better when people bought a newspaper every day?

by Anonymousreply 1103/10/2013

Yes R11, and it was still better when they bought newspapers WITHOUT ADVERTISING. I think you would be amazed if you went back 50 or 100 years and heard people talk about issues. The electorate was so much better informed than it is today.

by Anonymousreply 1203/10/2013

Mainstream media died a decade ago. Way to catch up OP.

by Anonymousreply 1303/10/2013

[quote]Most people on this site seem to believe the MSM all the time.

And it's so much better to unquestioningly believe all of those conspiracy theories from the nutcase sites you frequent?

by Anonymousreply 1403/10/2013

When did newspapers not have ads? You must be very old, r12, or you've lived in a rarefied atmosphere.

by Anonymousreply 1503/10/2013

tell those people who will be furloughed that nothing is being cut

by Anonymousreply 1603/10/2013

Mainstream media's purpose is to keep people stupid, not informed. It's a tool to manipulate the stupid to do the bidding of those with the highest bid at the moment.

Take a look at OP's post. What is the real message there? Is it objective? Which side does it take?

by Anonymousreply 1703/10/2013

Most people don't want to pay for content.

You get what you pay for.

by Anonymousreply 1803/10/2013

Again, this problem began long before the Internet, and was well-documented by the 1980s.

by Anonymousreply 1903/10/2013

I expected a certain lack of journalistic credibility from local newspapers, but I was genuinely surprised when the NY Times turned out to be equally bad. I suppose it was because I had always seen the Times held up as an example of good journalism, so Judith Miller and its reporting on WMD came as a surprise.

I haven't read the Times since then.

by Anonymousreply 2003/10/2013

[quote]It is the fault of the public which is not willing to pay for news.

Pay the news-fakers to lie to us about Saddam Hussein's non-existent arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction?

by Anonymousreply 2203/11/2013

Paul Krugman is in charge of US economic policy? Gosh, who knew.

[quote]Why do threads critical of Krugman get deleted?

Because you're a fucking idiot who doesn't learn his lesson?

by Anonymousreply 2503/12/2013

[quote]Another reason the MSM is dying is the fact that morons like Paul Krugman are heralded as genius, when their moronic ideas are causing many of our problems.

And yet, despite repeatedly being asked, you haven't been able to identify a single "moronic idea" of Krugman's that is causing any problems. And every time you do talk about Krugman, you quickly reveal that you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

[quote]Why do threads critical of Krugman get deleted?

Because you're a moron who spams the forum. This isn't rocket science.

by Anonymousreply 2603/12/2013

Since radio and televison are part of MSM, until ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC stop operating 24/7 the MSM is still alive and well.

by Anonymousreply 2703/12/2013

R27, the point is that people no longer turn to the old sources of print and broadcast journalism as their primary sources of news. The unthinking trust that most Americans used to place in these news sources has been irreparably compromised by the cover-ups of the MSM enabling the crimes of the ruling class.

We have seen behind the curtain and we know the "Big Boys" in journalism are a pack of shills and liars belonging to the same cabal with the powerful elites they cover.

by Anonymousreply 2803/12/2013

Look at how the MSM has reported on Ed Snowden- they are lapdog bottom feeding shills.

by Anonymousreply 2906/29/2013

Snowden--

Commenting about Snowden’s flight to Russia en route to Latin America, a very good friend (and former editor) of mine observed: "If Edward Snowden is going to hopscotch around the word to locations where elections are rigged and human rights ignored, that giant sucking sound is sympathy evaporating for him."

A better way of viewing Snowden’s behavior is that he is hopscotching around the world to countries not ruled by governments that kill people by remote control, and are strong enough to prevent him from being seized and tortured by the only government that routinely commits crimes of that kind.

Yes, Vladimir Putin and his clique are products of the Soviet system that murdered tens of millions of people. At present, however, they are content to contain their ambitions to the country they currently control.

Russian drones aren’t plying the skies above distant countries, raining death and terror on helpless neighborhoods. Putin the ex-KGB chief doesn’t have Tuesday meetings to authorize summary executions on the basis of a "Kill List" compiled by anonymous and unaccountable functionaries. Russia’s FSB secret police, like its counterpart, the FBI, does stage false-flag terrorist incidents, but once again, those are carried out for domestic political purposes. Moscow doesn’t provide arms, training, and support to terrorist groups in Syria, Iran, and elsewhere; that’s Washington’s gig. And since September 2001 it has Washington, not Moscow, that employs the services of KGB-trained secret police in countries like Uzbekistan and Syria.

During the Brezhnev era, Soviet "journalists" routinely participated in KGB-orchestrated denunciations of dissidents and human rights activists. As the well-coiffed commissar David Gregory demonstrated during his June 24 interview with Glenn Greenwald, behavior of that kind is not quite commonplace for members of the American media elite. An even more repellent example was provided by New York Times columnist Ross Sorkin, who said on CNBC that "I’d almost arrest Glenn Greenwald [because] he wants to help get him to Ecuador or whatever."

Russia is ruled by a degenerate gangster regime, not a cunning Communist cabal pursuing global hegemony and ideological domination. In many important ways, that long-suffering country is less collectivist than the United States has become.

In Russia today, "Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago is required reading in schools for 11th graders," notes Russian writer Stanislav Mishin (who could be described as the Russian equivalent of a Pat Buchanan-style nationalist conservative). "All the brutality of the Soviets and the crimes that were committed will be in the minds of our children for generations. Where is any review [in American schools] of the crimes that Wall Street committed when it sponsored and set up those same Communist Marxists or Hitler's Fascist Marxists? Nowhere. Where is the admission of the massacres that the American army committed in the independent nation of the Confederate States? Nowhere, nor [is there] anything of the terror bombings of German cities or anything else of that nature. You will never hear anything on these from those NYC/DC blabber heads who love their Wall Street and think that genocidaires like Sherman were bully."

Mishin observes that under the administration of former President Medvedev (a protégé of Putin), Russia had a flat income tax – "and not the 30% or so suggested by those American conservatives but at 13" – and a top corporate tax rate of 24% "compared to the American Federal rate of 36% and additional state rates." There is also a far greater diversity of opinion in the Russian media than one finds in the American "free" press – a fact underscored quite memorably by the way the American media eagerly joined in the Orwellian Two-Minutes Hate of Edward Snowden.

What about foreign aggression and revolutionary subversion? Aren't Putin and his comrades to blame for promoting terrorism? One imagines Mishin drawing a steadying breath before addressing that subject.

"Who invaded over 30 nations in less than 200 years?" Mishin quite reasonably inquires. "Who has fought over 6 wars since 1991: Iraq followed by 10 years of bombing them, Somalia, Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, while engaging unofficially in Somalia, Kenya, Yemen, Pakistan and the Philippines? Who waxes and screams for full invasions of Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Venezuela? Who threatened to bomb our ships and come in and defend the Chechen Islamics? Who sponsored revolutions in Serbia, Armenia, Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus (failed), Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan (failed), Moldova (failed)?"

by Anonymousreply 3006/30/2013

Libertarian idiot bumping his own threads. How very sad.

by Anonymousreply 3106/30/2013

How very sad you can't dispute sound reasoning.

by Anonymousreply 3206/30/2013

No, Russians kill people by sending them radiation through the mail. SO much more civilized. Both Russia and China do everything the US is accused of by Snowden.

by Anonymousreply 3306/30/2013

[quote]How very sad you can't dispute sound reasoning.

As soon as you can supply some, we'll happily dispute it. Until then, we'll just be laughing at you.

by Anonymousreply 3407/01/2013

R34-

What do you think of Snowden now?

by Anonymousreply 3507/16/2013

Snowden, like most Libertarians, is a self-important idiot.

by Anonymousreply 3607/16/2013

R36-

And fascistic cumguzzlers like you are destroying our country.

That what you think you know about the "security" of the Fatherland...I mean Homeland, has been filtered through propagandistic techniques that would make Goebbles fart, shit, sneeze, cough and cum at the same time?

Are you really that stupid, or do you just play a retard on TV?

When things get bad (and things are getting worse everyday- just wait until the EBT & ATM cards don't work, the SS checks bounce, and milk and gas both cost $10/gallon) then I hope you will remember this post. It's coming- next week, next month, or maybe 5 years from now- but it will happen.

by Anonymousreply 3707/16/2013

It baffles me how threads like this so quickly devolve into name-calling and foolishness.

The bottom line is that we all need to be responsible, critical thinkers and not simply accept what we are told. This doesn't just apply to mainstream media, but to all aspects of life.

by Anonymousreply 3807/16/2013

[quote]Journalists do very little actual journalism — independent investigation, analysis, reporting. They are told what stories are “important”

Really? Who tells them? Their bosses? The government?

[quote]and, for each story, there is an official Narrative, explaining the key issues and acceptable opinions on these issues.

The notion of an official Narrative (nice capital-N action there) is closer to the mark, but in general, anyone who uses phrases like "the official Narrative" really means "opinions with which I don't agree."

[quote]Journalists’ primary sources are off-the-record, anonymous briefings by government officials or other insiders, who provide the Narrative.

That applies more to Washington D.C. than it does anywhere else, though it's certainly true in state and municipal governments to some extent. But in any case, those aren't "primary" sources unless you're a pundit; they're background sources. A primary source is someone with a name, a job title, etc.

[quote]Even Wikipedia, much maligned by the establishment media, gets it right: “ sequestration refers to across the board reductions to the planned increases in federal spending that began on March 1, 2013.” If we have Wikipedia, why on earth would we pay for expensive government PR firms?

Now you're in cloud cuckoo-land -- not about government PR firms, but about Wikipedia.

by Anonymousreply 3907/16/2013

Erm, R37?

You have to take your meds [bold]every day[/bold], even on days when you think you're feeling alright. That's the only way they're going to work, cupcake.

And while you're at it, take the aluminum wrap off your head. Trust me, it does not protect you from the Government Death Ray. Really, it doesn't.

by Anonymousreply 4007/16/2013

NY Times was the very first newspaper to be taken over by the CIA.

If it is relatively liberal today, it's because that happened so long ago and under less of a right wing orthodoxy.

by Anonymousreply 4107/16/2013

R39-

Jesus fucking CHRIST on a cross. Are you naive or stupid?

[quote]Really? Who tells them? Their bosses? The government?

News orgs that have national readership have very, VERY powerful and well connected editors, all of whom dine with, party with, meet privately with and communicate with the elites that are in government, just out of government or that contribute heavily to government officials.

The editors of the Washington Post had the Ed Snowden story for nearly 2 weeks before he went to Greenwald. For fuck's sake- if it hadn't been for them, we wouldn't have the Drudge Report! These editors and publishers squash any story they can that makes the government look bad, and when the DO run them, they always try to make it look good for the BIG players.

Why isn't the headline today in the NYTimes and WaPo about how Soros is using the B&MGates foundation to evade BILLIONS in taxes? No, instead it's page 14 in the Biloxi Bullhorn. Pissing off someone like Soros, or the Kochs, or Buffett---never, unless they get the heads up to run with the story. Even then it gets buried fast.

Pissing off the government controllers (aka the BIG BOYS that pay for their billion dollar campaigns) means you lose your seat at the White House press conference...or that you just get passed over and over and over so you can't so the hard questions. There are many journalists that have talked (off the record) about how they never get to ask questions because they once asked tough questions about sensitive subjects.

by Anonymousreply 4207/17/2013

R39-

[quote]The notion of an official Narrative (nice capital-N action there) is closer to the mark, but in general, anyone who uses phrases like "the official Narrative" really means "opinions with which I don't agree."

No, see above. The Narrative is controlled by the media, for the benefit of the mega wealthy that control the government. See Trayvon Martin.

by Anonymousreply 4307/17/2013

R39-

[quote]That applies more to Washington D.C. than it does anywhere else, though it's certainly true in state and municipal governments to some extent. But in any case, those aren't "primary" sources unless you're a pundit; they're background sources. A primary source is someone with a name, a job title, etc.

Once again, see above.

Unless you play the game, you don't get assigned to interview the powerful. Once you DO get that assignment, unless you play ball and only ask questions that fit within the neat Hegelian dialectic (left v right, R vD) then you lose the assignment.

You could see that even that old battleaxe cunt Helen Thomas was tired of it by the time Bush2 rolled in.

I'm beginning to think you're not naive or ignorant, just a government shill, R39

by Anonymousreply 4407/17/2013

Lovely Russia, where whistle blowers are imprisoned, abused and refused medical treatment until they die in prison. And, if that isn't quite enough abuse, they are given a posthumous show trial in which they are convicted of the crimes they blew the whistle on.

What a lovely place for Snowden to visit.

by Anonymousreply 4507/17/2013

R5---

[quote]Sequestration will result in the need for real cuts to programs.

Yeah, like that'll ever happen.

Government is like a cancer- it never voluntarily shrinks, and otherwise grows until it finally kills the host. We are nearly into stage five, and only radical surgery and radioactive destruction of the major tumors (aka Washington DC) will save us.

Returning ALL powers - and I mean all, including medical care, defense, welfare, education, infrastructure, energy and environmental policy, etc. but most importantly MONETARY POLICY (aka abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a commodity standard) - to the state level is the best hope we have for survival.

by Anonymousreply 4607/17/2013

Government is not the cancer. The rich are the cancer. Who owns the papers? Not the government. The rich.

"the overall percentage of the budget that goes to servicing the debt is also growing."

FALSE.

Interest on debt today is 6% of federal expenditure.

In FY91, interest was 11% of federal expenditure.

With the government borowing at rates close to 0%, there has never been a better time to run a deficit at any time in American history.

You do not hear this from the Main Stream Media because it has a right wing bias.

The reason the media is sinking into irrelevance today is because that is what the right wants. They are the ones who bought control of all the newspapers and television stations to squash leftist views. They are the ones who suppressed UPI so that AP would be the ONLY source of news for most Americans. They are the ones who are firing all the reporters and insisting on celebrity "news" instead of real news.

When the fairness doctrine was repealed, there was an organized effort to give the US a conservative media monopoly.

They didn't care that they would now lose money on their newspapers because the target was to control the voters, not make money.

They were not and are not "businessmen" in any traditional sense of the word.

by Anonymousreply 4707/17/2013

At first I thought R45 was being ironic and describing the conditions our gay brother, Bradley Manning, was being exposed to.

No, she's such a stupid cunt that she can't see that the USSA has become the most totalitarian and evil country on the planet.

Stupid fucking cunts like her should try to open their eyes before exposing themselves as subliterate mongoloid twats.

Russia sucks, and China does too, but they don't claim to be the "Great FUCKING Shining Beacon of Liberty" the way the USSA does.

by Anonymousreply 4807/17/2013

R46 is an idiot. The only hope we have of survival is gutting the corporate and finance power structures.

We need a NATIONAL USURY law and the immediate seizure of the payday loan companies for liquidation and their owners put in jail. We need to REVOKE the charters of large banks that are doing little business lending, chiefly Citigroup and Bank of America and create new banks in their stead.

We need to regulate and license futures markets and put an immediate end to market volatility bets and program trading. We need to institute capital controls, put an elected employee representative on every board of directors with veto power over executive compensation. We need to make it harder to fire people, and we need to remove the cost of health care from business by socializing medicine.

We also need to nationalize the oil companies so that their assets may be used in the national interest.

We need a five year moratorium on all immigration from every source, and invade and seize the world's tax shelters (places like Jersey, Monaco, Manx, Bermuda, Palau, Caymans, Gibraltar, Panama... pretty much all of them except Switzerland).

Taxes on the rich should be raised.

by Anonymousreply 4907/17/2013

R47-

I'm going to go easy on you because I believe you are speaking from ignorance, not malice.

[quote]Government is not the cancer. The rich are the cancer. Who owns the papers? Not the government. The rich.

Who are "the rich"? According to the government it's anyone earning more than $120k/yr, which is not bad, but far from rich. A few million dollars is great, but not rich.

The billionaires like Soros, the Kochs, the Walton's, the House of Saud, Buffett, Bettencort, Murdoch, Adelson, Bloomberg, Mikhelson...the vast majority have never most of these people but they own the newspapers and cable companies and control what you see and hear. If they want a story quashed..the media quashes it.

Why are these rich fuckers a cancer? Well, because they CONTROL the government. They own the banks, they own the media, and they are "above the law" and the government does anything they want it to do.

There are a few very wealthy people that have made their money honestly, but most of them use their control of the government and media to make themselves even richer and more powerful.

In that case, wouldn't it make sense to REDUCE THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT so that these people have less power? Make government more local, more responsive to the needs of the people in the local community, more accountable to the people?

[quote]"the overall percentage of the budget that goes to servicing the debt is also growing."

No, but that is only due to the manipulations of these powerful people, who control the central banks and Federal Reserve and are trading long term (30 year) debt for short term (3mo-2yr) debt that WAS driving interest rates lower. Now the game is falling apart, and interest rates are going MUCH higher. Look at 30yr mortgage rates- they are up 23% in just a few months. That will KILL housing, and destroy any new construction.

[quote]Interest on debt today is 6% of federal expenditure.

Yes, but (as shown above) only because they traded higher long term rates for lower short term rates.

Look at the current Federal Reserve policy of QEInfininty-

The Federal Reserve has been buying the vast majority of new USTreasury bonds, and a large fraction of USMortgages. The mere hint that they might let the "evil free market" find a natural interest rate for those Tbills and Mortgages has panicked the (bankster manipulated unfree as hell)market.

That should tell you how precarious this system really is.

-------

Let me explain, in simple terms, QEinfinity.

Imagine you had a business and had 5,000 lines of credit---

CREDIT LINE ONE- 4,000@ 30yr @6%

CREDIT LINE TWO -800@ 10yr @4%

and

CREDIT LINE THREE- 200@ 2yr @2%.

You hit a rough patch, and need to refinance. That 6% rate is killing you, so you sell some of the 30yr and refinance at 2yr rates. You hope that reducing your long term borrowing costs you will be able to "grow out" of this rough patch.

After a year, your credit profile is this---

CREDIT LINE ONE- 200@ 30yr @5%

CREDIT LINE TWO- 800@ 10yr @3.5%

CREDIT LINE THREE- 4,000@ 1yr at 1.25%

You have succeeded! Your credit costs are much, much lower!!! Yahoooo, big party!

But remember, your company is the biggest in the world, and can temporarily control these rates, but exogenous shocks could cause problems. You can't fool Mother Nature.

Suddenly Muthafucking Nature (aka the free market) causes interest rates to rise and those 4,000 1yr @1.25% must be rolled over and the interest rate is 5%, or 10%.

Suddenly your payments rise, hard and fast.

That's what happening to the USGov today.

Research Austrian economics, and you will understand why the current system is doomed.

Maybe tomorrow. Maybe 10 years from now. But it will die, and the little people will suffer.

[quote]In FY91, interest was 11% of federal expenditure.

And soon they will go to 50% of expenditures.

[quote]With the government borowing at rates close to 0%, there has never been a better time to run a deficit at any time in American history.

As above, that deficit is artificial and based on being able to print trillions of dollars at zero interest. When the party ends the US will be in deep shit.

[quote]You do not hear this from the Main Stream Media because it has a right wing bias.

No, it has a GOVERNMENT bias. No left or right, just towards the government. Look at how Ron Paul was shut out- freeing black men from prison, stopping the wars, reining the banks, stopping corporate welfare- these were too much for the Republicrats to handle.

[quote]The reason the media is sinking into irrelevance today is because that is what the right wants. They are the ones who bought control of all the newspapers and television stations to squash leftist views. They are the ones who suppressed UPI so that AP would be the ONLY source of news for most Americans. They are the ones who are firing all the reporters and insisting on celebrity "news" instead of real news.

Really, no. The media is just in the pocket of the wealthy, and the bottom 99.99% get screwed. That is why the Internet has changed the game.

Maybe you should look for news on the Internet!

[quote]When the fairness doctrine was repealed, there was an organized effort to give the US a conservative media monopoly.

Eh, maybe, but the INTERNET CHANGED THAT. Jesus, look at the news online. Fuck NBCBSFoxNN.

[quote]They didn't care that they would now lose money on their newspapers because the target was to control the voters, not make money.

DINGDINGDING! That is why these billionaires control the media outlets and use the power of government regulation to A)STOP COMPETITON and B)BRAINWASH SIMPLE MINDED PEOPLE!

[quote]They were not and are not "businessmen" in any traditional sense of the word.

No, they are just government protected parasites. It makes me sad when people like you support them.

by Anonymousreply 5007/17/2013

[quote][R46] is an idiot. The only hope we have of survival is gutting the corporate and finance power structures.

I agree. Big banks and multinational corporations have control of the government and need to be cut down. I guess you didn't hear that last year when Ron Paul was talking about gutting the Federal Reserve TBTF banks and stopping the subsidies to these mega corporations.

[quote]We need a NATIONAL USURY law and the immediate seizure of the payday loan companies for liquidation and their owners put in jail. We need to REVOKE the charters of large banks that are doing little business lending, chiefly Citigroup and Bank of America and create new banks in their stead.

Ehhh, when the government makes banking such a scam I can't fault these payday companies for exploiting loopholes, but I'll agree that Citi, Goldman Sucks, BoAmerika, and the Federal Reserve need to be liquidated and their leaders barred from banking and government office.

[quote]We need to regulate and license futures markets and put an immediate end to market volatility bets and program trading.

Uhhhh. Markets are smarter than me, you, and Bernanke and Obama put together, times a billion. These "bets" are the result of an artificial government monopoly market facilitated by the Federal Reserve and Citi, GSucks, BoAmerika, etc.

[quote]We need to institute capital controls,

Explain. In a free market, capital is a GOOD thing and doesn't need control.

[quote]put an elected employee representative on every board of directors with veto power over executive compensation.

AMEN! These fuckers have used their control of the government to rape the bottom 99.99%.

[quote]We need to make it harder to fire people,

Why?

[quote]and we need to remove the cost of health care from business by socializing medicine.

If all regulations on medical care were abolished, the quality of care would increase while the cost would drop. Look at the cost of "cosmetic surgery" over the last 20 years- it is lightly regulated but costs have dropped by 90% while quality has risen. Look at Singapore. Many wealthy westerners travel there to get top-quality (out of pocket) health care because the regulatory bullshit and poor quality of government controlled medicine in the US, Canada and Europe.

[quote]We also need to nationalize the oil companies so that their assets may be used in the national interest.

Yes, that's worked so well in Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia, and Argentina, etc.

Better yet, why not completely privatize it (not the bullshit half measures of Reagan or Thatcher) and allow the free market to innovate? Like with cell phones. Or computers. Can you imagine a cell phone designed by a government committee?

[quote]We need a five year moratorium on all immigration from every source, and invade and seize the world's tax shelters (places like Jersey, Monaco, Manx, Bermuda, Palau, Caymans, Gibraltar, Panama... pretty much all of them except Switzerland).

Why? And why are you so keen on giving even MORE money to a government that wastes it on spying on every email and phone call, invading dozens of countries thousands of miles away, supporting murderous dictators as long as they obey anything the US Government says, puts millions of black men in prison for selling weed, puts sick people in jail for smoking weed, and basically acts like the biggest bully in the world? Do you really think giving the government MORE power will make things better?

[quote]Taxes on the rich should be raised.

Yes. Anyone who makes any money working for the government as an employee or contractor should have their taxes raised to 100% so that people that actually make things and do things can make a living.

by Anonymousreply 5107/17/2013

Ahhhh I just noticed I didn't address R49 as the target of my reply at R51

I've discovered you have to be very specific with people that are that easily confused.

by Anonymousreply 5207/17/2013

I'm speaking as someone who has worked in the media for 20 years.

When conspiracy nuts and libertarians talk about the media, they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. It makes me laugh out loud sometimes reading the shit those idiots say here (and elsewhere).

There are a lot of problems in this business, for sure. But the people who bark the loudest about it are truly clueless.

by Anonymousreply 5307/17/2013

R53-

Thank you for that completely information free post!

As someone who has "worked in the media for 20 years" I'm sure you are well versed in saying something without saying anything.

Please, let us know what your next lack of thought is!

Or, you could actually contribute to the thread, and bring some single, molecularly infinitesimal insight.

Oh, I forgot. You work in the media, and therefore you probably don't know your ass from a hole the ground.

by Anonymousreply 5407/17/2013

Bravo, R54!

R53 is probably pleased as punch that the government is now allowed to use the media to distribute propaganda.

by Anonymousreply 5507/17/2013

R55-

Is this propaganda? Racist? Or is just highlighting it as a part of a massive study considered racial profiling?

[bold]An obscure Obama Administration report admitted:

[quote]While young [age 14 to 24] black males have accounted for about 1% of the population from 1980 to 2008…(b)y 2008, young black males made up about a quarter of all homicide offenders (27%).[/bold]

I think that drug laws, government schools and welfare are destroying the lives of many young blacks. These laws and systems create disincentives and malincentives that warp the formation of family and the pursuit of "non-ghetto" life...a life that is glorified and reinforced by many hip hop and rap artists.

Is that racist, or just honest?

by Anonymousreply 5607/17/2013

OP, when you start a thread and out of 56 replies, 20 of them are yours (and several of those are extremely long-winded), it really means that you need to get a blog and/or a life.

The fact that you title this thread "the mainstream media is dead," when in fact the media has a bigger stranglehold on information now than it ever has, just makes all your blathering sad.

Meanwhile, the introduction to trolling posts that you make on other threads--also sad. Are you young? Or just pathetically immature?

by Anonymousreply 5707/17/2013

[quote]If all regulations on medical care were abolished, the quality of care would increase while the cost would drop.

Yeah, that's why every major industrialized nation has an unregulated health care market. Oh, wait... no, they don't. Free clue, moron: Medicare has controlled costs better than the private alternatives, is cheaper than the private alternatives, has better outcomes than the private alternatives, and is more popular than the private alternatives, four facts that you cannot handle or accept, which is why you continue to pretend they don't exist.

[quote]Look at the cost of "cosmetic surgery" over the last 20 years- it is lightly regulated but costs have dropped by 90% while quality has risen.

Wow.... you really don't know *anything* about market forces, do you? You really can't think of any other reason why cosmetic surgery costs might have dropped and quality risen? None? Bueller?

[quote]Look at Singapore. Many wealthy westerners travel there to get top-quality (out of pocket) health care because the regulatory bullshit and poor quality of government controlled medicine in the US, Canada and Europe.

ROFL.... Moron, not only is your statement completely false but Singapore has a government-run health care system!

by Anonymousreply 5807/17/2013

The Mainstream Media killed their credibility using Saddam Hussein's vast arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

by Anonymousreply 5907/17/2013

R51 is a long screed basically confirming the rich are the problem and continuing on to say they OWN the government. They do not "Own" the government. The people own the government. The rich only control the government through criminality, meaning the people can take it back from them.

The rest of the post was just smokescreen. The point is that deficits right now are not a problem for the government. The claim that debt service will soon be 50% because nobody will lend to the USA, well, only the rich could bring that about and the government could stop them with well placed laws and regulations.

by Anonymousreply 6007/17/2013

HOLY crap/

by Anonymousreply 6107/17/2013

Wow, r48. What an explosion of bile. I post about Russia's abuse of its own whistleblower, Magnitsky, so that makes me a

[quote]subliterate mongoloid twat

????

I was ridiculing Snowden, who's visited China (Hong Kong), Russia and is headed for Venezuela, all countries which abuse their citizens' privacy, with Russia being particularly infamous for abusing whistle blowers.

by Anonymousreply 6207/17/2013

R58-

Health care in Singapore-

A key principle of Singapore's national health scheme is that no medical service is provided free of charge, regardless of the level of subsidy, even within the public healthcare system. This mechanism is intended to reduce the overutilisation of healthcare services, a phenomenon often seen in fully subsidised universal health insurance systems. Out-of-pocket charges vary considerably for each service and level of subsidy. At the highest level of subsidy, although each out-of-pocket expense is typically small, costs can accumulate and become substantial for patients and families. At the lowest level, the subsidy is in effect nonexistent, and patients are treated like private patients, even within the public system.

The increasingly large private sector provides care to those who are privately insured, foreign patients, or public patients who are able to afford what often amount to very large out-of-pocket payments above the levels provided by government subsidies.

by Anonymousreply 6307/17/2013

R60

[quote][R51] is a long screed basically confirming the rich are the problem and continuing on to say they OWN the government. They do not "Own" the government. The people own the government. The rich only control the government through criminality, meaning the people can take it back from them.

Yes, let's see how that works. The rich get massive subsidies, kickbacks, lucrative contracts, preferential treatment, etc. but I'm sure YOU can convince people that if they just give the government just a LITTLE more power they will behave.

Yes, the fact that the "rich" (aka the top .01%) control the government is a problem, and it can only be solved by devolving government powers to the local level. Do you even know what the Federal Reserve does?

Government at a local level can be controlled by the people. A government of +300M people is too large, too corrupt and too far gone to be saved.

Maybe if you would look at the power of secession, aka the forcible removal of power from a powerful central government and the benefits of such actions you wouldn't sound like a fool.

by Anonymousreply 6407/17/2013

[quote]The rest of the post was just smokescreen. The point is that deficits right now are not a problem for the government. The claim that debt service will soon be 50% because nobody will lend to the USA, well, only the rich could bring that about and the government could stop them with well placed laws and regulations.

No, I guess your knowledge of economics is on par with your understanding of government growth and the nature of people to "tend their own garden" that leads to the metastatic growth of bureaucracy.

by Anonymousreply 6507/17/2013

R62-

Attempting to persuade people that Russia is inferior to the USA when it comes to human rights abuses makes you a "subliterate mongoloid twat".

If you can argue differently, or explain why you think it improper for someone who knows he will be executed and tortured by the US Government to seek protection from governments strong enough to defy the USA...then please do.

Pointing out a dozen, or a thousand, cases of human rights abuses in Russia or China does not change the fact the the USA is the biggest bully, and abuses human rights at equal or greater degrees than the others.

Or perhaps you are ignorant of the fact that the USA imprisons more people than any country on the planet?

by Anonymousreply 6607/17/2013

Oh, and R62-

Why are you ridiculing Snowden for exposing the Stasi wet dream level of surveillance the US Government is engaged?

Do you think he was wrong?

by Anonymousreply 6707/17/2013

R58-

Get a new shtick. Sucking government dick must pay well for a two bit whore like you to stick around.

by Anonymousreply 6807/17/2013

[quote]A key principle of Singapore's national health scheme...

[irrelevant drivel deleted]

So? It's still a national health care system, as you yourself acknowledge, which means that any point you thought you were making is moot.

And, of course, you can't bring yourself to acknowledge that what you wrote about people leaving the U.S. to go to Singapore for health care is basically bullshit.

[quote]Attempting to persuade people that Russia is inferior to the USA when it comes to human rights abuses makes you a "subliterate mongoloid twat".

Oh, the irony....

[quote]Get a new shtick.

Sucks that you can't address my points, doesn't it? You're so transparent... when you get your ass handed to you, you always resort to childish name-calling. Feel free to come back when you're ready to have a serious debate. Until then, we'll just continue laughing at you.

[quote]Sucking government dick must pay well for a two bit whore like you to stick around.

LOL... Q.E.D.

by Anonymousreply 6907/17/2013

R69-

The fact that you posted

[irrelevant drivel deleted]

when that "drivel" was about the fact that Singapore offers "basic" subsidized health care at a nominal cost to the poor but has a HUGE network of private hospitals that do advanced treatments unavailable in the US, Canada or Europe just shows how disingenuous you are. The fact that these treatments are cheaper than almost anywhere in the world is evident to anyone that has looked at their health care system. Cancer treatments (that are still under review by the FDA, or unavailable due to "cost" to the socialist systems in Canada or Europe) are the most advanced on the planet.

I know- I've been there many times in the last 3 years for treatment for my partner.

I really believe that you are a shill. No one could be this evil, intentionally ignorant and duplicitous unless someone paid them.

by Anonymousreply 7007/18/2013

[quote]Attempting to persuade people that Russia is inferior to the USA when it comes to human rights abuses makes you a "subliterate mongoloid twat".

I didn't. I ridiculed Snowden for blowing the whistle on privacy abuse in the U.S. and then taking refuge in a series of countries that abuse the privacy of their citizens. The man could have gone to Iceland and blown the whistle from there. But, no, he's looked for help from China, Russia and Venezuela. If he's so serious about privacy issues and the glory of blowing the whistle, what the fuck is he doing sidling up to those countries?

by Anonymousreply 7107/18/2013

No, r72, I think they are self-aggrandizing hypocrites.

As for Assange, he has exposed many innocent people to danger by failing to redact their names when publishing documents. And he worked with Israel Shamir, who has disturbing links to Lukashenko, the dictator of Belarus.

You want them to be saints because they've taken on the U.S. government. They ain't saints.

by Anonymousreply 7407/18/2013

In 2004 George W. Bush participated in a debate with Kerry where a camera shot of Bush taken from behind the podium revealed that he had a mysterious bulge in the middle of his upper back. That and his curious speaking patterns suggested that he was wired for sound somehow and parroting answers that were being fed to him from off screen.

Freaky events like that were "processed" humorously and quickly in the press throughout the Bush years, then they disappeared down the memory hole. The media also fed us a bizarre story about Bush choking on a pretzel and sustaining injuries identical to those he'd get if he'd hit the floor face-first in a drunken stupor.

by Anonymousreply 7507/18/2013

Take a Valium.

[quote]Anyone who justifies the Stasi in the USA is a stupid cunt.

I didn't. You're imagining things. I dared to point out Snowden is not a saint, and you've invented things I didn't do to damn me for.

by Anonymousreply 7707/18/2013

Would you please [bold]MAKE UP YOUR MIND[/bold], Idiot Libertarian OCD-Spam-Posting Troll. Are government defenders Nazis or Stasi? Or is Germany one big ball of national-socialist-fascistic evil in your twisted little brain?

Hint: rants like R76 are pretty clear evidence you're losing the argument. You can't post a single coherent fact based in reality, so you resort to misogynist name-calling. Sad, really.

by Anonymousreply 7807/18/2013

Always late at night. probably on a drinking binge each time...

by Anonymousreply 7907/18/2013

[quote]I didn't. You're imagining things. I dared to point out Snowden is not a saint, and you've invented things I didn't do to damn me for.

He does that all the time. In his black-and-white world, there's no room for nuance. If you don't slavishly support everything he says, that's because you're a Nazi, socialist, Marxist, communist, NSA plant, sucker at the government teat, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam.

by Anonymousreply 8007/18/2013

Exactly

by Anonymousreply 8107/18/2013

Nazi, Stasi, NSA- there is no difference.

by Anonymousreply 8207/19/2013

R80-

Sorry, but anyone who supports the wholesale spying of the NaziStasiAgency is the enemy, and deserves to be put in jail.

Our government is evil and out of control.

Do you disagree?

by Anonymousreply 8307/19/2013

R77-

I didn't say he was a saint, but he's better than any of the cunts in congress. At least he is trying to expose the Nazification of the country.

If Bush was still president, this thread would be full of supporters.

by Anonymousreply 8407/19/2013

R74-

[quote]As for Assange, he has exposed many innocent people to danger by failing to redact their names when publishing documents

If they worked for the NSA or US Government as spies then the word "innocent" is laughable.

If they published the names, faces, SSN, and DNA of every person that works for the USGOV they would be doing the citizens of the USA a favor. Maybe we could quit fucking with the governments of every country on earth and stop trying to run the world.

If you are a spy, you are a traitor. They aren't "defending the USA" they are expanding the USEmpire.

by Anonymousreply 8507/19/2013

Real fascists wouldn't let you post your pathetic idiotic drivel on the internet. They'd just dump you into a camp and shoot you.

Funny how that hasn't happened yet. Like the collapse of the Eurozone, hyperinflation, etc. that have been breathlessly anticipated for at least six years.

Oh well, I guess Idiot Libertarians will always have their imaginary fantasy world to fall back on, that place where their brain-damaged theories actually make sense.

by Anonymousreply 8607/19/2013

R86-

I love it when you bring out the inner Nazi.

Your defense of Bradley Manning is touching.

by Anonymousreply 8707/19/2013

Libertarians always think abolishing or reducing government will suddenly make the bad guys go away.

They always have ideas on what to do, but not what to do afterwards.

by Anonymousreply 8807/19/2013

No, R88-

We realize that government is structured to reward bad guys, and that by reducing government power we make bad guys more manageable.

You fools believe that government agents and officials are angelic and pure beings sent from heaven and that any bad behavior is isolated.

Libertarians know that all people are driven by desire, and that only a rule of law will stop most bad behavior.

That's why psychos end up working for the government...or for big companies that control the government.

Hmmm, sounds like libertarians have the better idea.

by Anonymousreply 8907/19/2013

And I love it when you respond to simple facts with even more jargon and bullshit.

On our planet, "fascist" doesn't mean "all the shit I don't like". Sorry, fool. English has commonly accepted meanings for a reason.

by Anonymousreply 9007/19/2013

"As for Assange, he has exposed many innocent people to danger by failing to redact their names when publishing documents"

[quote]If they worked for the NSA or US Government as spies then the word "innocent" is laughable.

Assange published the names of the last few Jews living in Baghdad. They keep their identity hidden and an Anglican priest maintained contact with them. This was discussed in diplomatic communications, which Assange revealed without redacting the names of those Jews involved.

Assange published the names of dissidents in Zimbabwe.

Assange published the names of dissidents in Belarus, some of whom have been arrested.

Assange is a bastard.

by Anonymousreply 9107/19/2013

Funny thing- until the 1950s when the US and Europe decided to destabilize the Middle East the relationship between Christians, Jews and Muslims had been getting better.

R91-

Please give some links or shut it.

The Middle East is a disaster because western governments have been meddling in their affairs for 100+ years. Hell, 1000+ years.

It's no wonder they hate America and Europe. If the tables were turned and they had been killing people over here day after day after day for centuries, then I would hate them too.

by Anonymousreply 9207/19/2013

[quote]We realize that government is structured to reward bad guys, and that by reducing government power we make bad guys more manageable.

You do realize that statement makes no sense what-so-fucking-[ever in English? If government power is reduced, we make bad guys manageable... HOW? They just decide to be good? The "invisible hand" guides their selfish interests?

I mean, how ignorant of human behavior can you get?

by Anonymousreply 9307/19/2013

[quote]Nazi, Stasi, NSA- there is no difference.

Which is just one of the reasons we find you so amusing.

[quote]You fools believe that government agents and officials are angelic and pure beings sent from heaven and that any bad behavior is isolated.

So you keep claiming and yet you haven't been able to come up with a single quote from any poster here that even remotely says anything like that.

I repeat: In his black-and-white world, there's no room for nuance. If you don't slavishly support everything he says, that's because you're a Nazi, socialist, Marxist, communist, NSA plant, sucker at the government teat, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam.

Q.E.D.

[quote]Please give some links or shut it.

Why? You never do. But, fine, here's a link. Happy now?

[quote]The publication by WikiLeaks of the names of the seven remaining Jews in Baghdad has put their lives in immediate danger, according to Canon Andrew White, the Anglican vicar of the city.

by Anonymousreply 9407/19/2013

[quote]HOW? They just decide to be good? The "invisible hand" guides their selfish interests?

Like all true libertarian fanatics, he is firmly convinced, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, that bad guys can only become powerful when backed by the government, that companies can only grow large because they are aided by the government, and so on. Reality has never, and will never, intrude on his fantasy world.

by Anonymousreply 9507/19/2013

Good god, more piss yellow from the government cocksucker. R80-95-95 PLEASE GET A JOB...well, at least a job that the taxpayers aren't on the hook.

The government lies. It steals. It kills.

When you justify that with your pathetic posts, it makes you look foolish.

by Anonymousreply 9607/19/2013

[quote]Good god, more piss yellow from the government cocksucker.

Yes, because you haven't posted at all on this thread... Oh, wait...

[quote][R80]-95-95 PLEASE GET A JOB...well, at least a job that the taxpayers aren't on the hook.

I have a job, thanks, but I'm ever so touched by your concern. It warms the cockles of my heart.

[quote]The government lies. It steals. It kills.

So you keep saying. But, of course, that has nothing to do with anything being discussed on this thread or that, once again, you got your ass handed to you and you can't deal with it.

[quote]When you justify that with your pathetic posts, it makes you look foolish.

And yet you cannot find a single "pathetic post" of mine that says anything like that. Why is that? I repeat:

So you keep claiming and yet you haven't been able to come up with a single quote from any poster here that even remotely says anything like that.

I repeat: In his black-and-white world, there's no room for nuance. If you don't slavishly support everything he says, that's because you're a Nazi, socialist, Marxist, communist, NSA plant, sucker at the government teat, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam.

Q.E.D.

by Anonymousreply 9707/19/2013

Have any of you crazy bitches ever set foot in a newsroom?

Have any of you taken a journalism class?

by Anonymousreply 9807/20/2013

[quote]Have any of you taken a journalism class?

That's like a blog posting, but you put it on paper or on television, right?

by Anonymousreply 9907/20/2013

As long as the MSM sucks government dick, it deserves to be ignored.

by Anonymousreply 10007/22/2013

R100-

Start counting the number of ads from the US Military, or military suppliers like Boeing or Lockheed, or ADM, or IBM, or BC/BS and then wonder why they advertise.

If they don't like a story by CNBC or CBS or FOX all they have to do is threaten to pull ad dollars...and that stops any bad stories.

The media is controlled by the big corporations and big government. Anything that sheds light on their evil gets spiked.

by Anonymousreply 10107/23/2013

R100 and R101 are the same person.

In related news, R101 is a deranged loon.

by Anonymousreply 10207/24/2013

R102-

Why?

Because I point out how evil and corrupt our government really is ?

by Anonymousreply 10307/24/2013

[quote]R100, Start counting the number of ads from the US Military, or military suppliers like Boeing or Lockheed, or ADM, or IBM, or BC/BS and then wonder why they advertise.

LOL... You still don't understand that trolldar always reveals you when you talk to yourself. This is world-class stupidity.

by Anonymousreply 10407/24/2013

The mainstream media barely needs to to train people up anymore, it just gets its 'breaking news' off of Twitter. Correct or otherwise.

And I will forever hate it for being the sanctioned home of PR-planted nonsense, covering up and running beard articles for i.e. closeted celebs and hoodwinking naive young girls esp. into thinking they have a chance with fit young men, all to the tune of millions of dollars in lies.

by Anonymousreply 10507/24/2013

R101 is exactly right. Why exactly are Exxon and Lockheed advertising on CNN? None of the viewers are in the market for an aircraft carrier or an oil rig. By buying advertising they're buying a say in what the network runs, and they can buy A LOT of advertising.

by Anonymousreply 10607/24/2013

Next?

by Anonymousreply 10707/24/2013

None of you have any idea what you're talking about.

by Anonymousreply 10807/24/2013

The MSM (Fox, CNN, NPR, MSNBC, etc.) is just a fascist version of Pravda or Tass.

They faithfully "report" the government propaganda and then attack anyone who disputes the lies.

Our government is evil, and the MSMedia is just their lapdog.

Thank GOD for the Internet and the ability to learn the truth.

by Anonymousreply 10908/25/2013

[quote]Why exactly are Exxon and Lockheed advertising on CNN?

R106-

Even better, why does Archer Daniels Midland, or Monsanto, or Eastman advertise on the nightly news, and especially on Sunday morning "news" programs.

They do it so they can control the MSM.

The government is controlled by these people, the top .01% and they control the banks and the big Fortune 50 (and have ways of controlling the F500) and they are terrified that people will start to see through their bullshit and embrace libertarianism.

by Anonymousreply 11008/25/2013

R108

Please enlighten us.

Are you saying that our government is corrupt and controlled by a small oligarchy? Or that both (R)eps and (D)ems are in the pocket of these powerful companies? Or that the banks have a death grip on the monkey brained assholes in DC?

by Anonymousreply 11108/25/2013

[quote]Thank GOD for the Internet and the ability to learn the truth.

You wouldn't know the truth if it waltzed up to you and bit you in the ass. Sad, but true.

by Anonymousreply 11208/25/2013

[quote] Archer Daniels Midland, or Monsanto, or Eastman advertise on the nightly news

quote(that are safe with no mosquito or Steer or Wasp or THE HULK!) and would love to loveand kisses and bug murder.

I would love to see you this week, and Amber Audra.

Our government is evil. Just F*ed up, with no escape.

---------

I love you, and I want you to know that I will do Anything I can to help you. You, and your sisters, are amazingly beautiful and

by Anonymousreply 11308/25/2013

Wow.... our resident libertarian troll really is drunk tonight. R113 is ... just wow....

by Anonymousreply 11408/25/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.