Time To Break Up The
MEDIA
So how in the world did a crazy person like Trump get as far as he did in the primaries ending up with the shit show we have today.
There are many owners of the blame, the Republican Party being the obvious leader but coming in 2nd place is the Media. After all Trump is a media creation created 100% by greed. The Media knew he was nuts and destructive for the country but they were hooked on the $$$ from selling ads, just ask Les Monves the CEO of CBS who said, "It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS," he said of the presidential race.
Moonves called the campaign for president a "circus" full of "bomb throwing," and he hopes it continues.
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/39610-the-us-corporate-me...
We need to go back to the days when the there were rules as to how many TV & Radio Stations as well as Newspapers can be owned by one group. Time to break them up for the good of the country.
Comments
Well past time, actually.
Just one more thing to add to her husbands 'legacy', the telecom act of '96(?). Hello Rupert Murdock!
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march
Speaking of Fox, why does no one in the media discuss Ailes
with what is going on and the fact that Roger Ailes (a.k.a. serial sexual abuser) is a key advisor to Trump and yet I have not seen a single story about that during this blowup, why?
I believe that all of the corporate media has a hands off on bashing each other. The fact that the disgusting troll that is Ailes is protected is very telling.
It Was Called Out Long Ago -- From 1988:
http://lwv.org/press-releases/league-refuses-help-perpetrate-fraud
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
This is another failure of unregulated capitalism, I think.
In a society where profit comes before people, greed before democracy, and wealth is the only thing that confers status, Trump vs Clinton is what we get, and this after eight years of the broken promises of Obama.
Unregulated capitalism has brought us: a public school system under attack; a dysfunctional health care system; economic stagnation; CEO's making 320 times what the average worker earns; endless wars for private profit; a biosphere on the verge of collapse; a regressive tax system where wages are taxed at a higher rate than unearned income; and a crumbling infrastructure.
Nice legacy Barry!
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
The Democratic party
created the space for a Trump and the media promoted it.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
On cue this Counterpunch article
gives good reason to break up the media.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/11/the-new-york-times-rejects-majori...
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
Of course
The Republican Party gets Americans to vote against their own interests rather frequently, so this phenomenon is not limited to referendums. Our problem is that using media as a crutch to think critically for us or provide all the information we need leads to undesirable results. I think it's a stretch to say that the NY Times "rejects majority rule", their POV is that the decisions reached by the voters in the referenda they refer to might be mistake. Only time will tell.
For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to everyone that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still.
John Maynard Keynes, 1930
So the times logic is that voters
are sorta all on the "low IQ spectrum" w/out the capability to figure out what might or might not be in their collective interest. In the NYT I trust, not.
The results of these referendums, according to The Times, “eroded their own [the voters] rights and ignited political crises,” thereby underpinning “why many political scientists consider referendums messy and dangerous.” Referendums “often subvert democracy rather than serve it,” because “voters must make their decisions with relatively little information, forcing them to rely on political messaging – which puts power in the hands of political elites rather than those of voters.”
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
Hoodwinkers
Yes, the Hoodwinkers have always sneered at those who they have hoodwinked and referred to them as the Rubes, Stupid, Low Intelligence Types, Unwashed Masses, and in the print media, Subscribers. Whereas the entirety of disdain should be heaped upon the Crooked.
CounterPunch is one site/publication that has not sold out
to the neoliberal Clintons and what they stand for and who they represent. It's been quite telling to see The Nation, Mother Jones and several others back a warmonger for president who openly represents the 1% instead of the majority.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
But they and others are dependent on fundraising..
Only in America. Soon we'll all be shaking cans in the streets to pay for everything. Media sites on the corporate teat do not have buckets and tamborines.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Agreed
The number of sites I had bookmarked has dwindled considerably since right around the time of the "edict" at TOP. It was as a journalistic coup occurred on that fateful day, March 15th.
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
Support the media you trust, they need the $
The day I dumped my NYT subscription, I subscribed to Democracy Now. I donate when I can here, to Counterpunch and to Democracy Now. Without financial support they will all disappear.
I wish
they had linked the Times article they referenced in the Counterpunch article. My ears perked up when I saw the name Ken Rogoff referenced. I am assuming that Rogoff was one of the authors of the Times article. If so, Rogoff has no credibility anyway. He is the co-author of the infamous and now debunked paper referenced in this article in the New Yorker.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
More information does not equate to better judgment or
better communication. In that sense, IMO, the NYT is both right and wrong: we want a government that passes good, beneficial laws and regulations, but giving "the people" more information and then holding plebiscites won't do the trick. While information is crucial, an advisory referendum still won't necessarily get you what's good, no matter how "well informed" the public is. For a plebiscite to work as intended the population as a whole needs to be able to make good, beneficial-to-all judgments, in addition to possessing all the relevant information.
The obvious sticking point with the Counterpunch article is that the author appears to prefer rule by plebiscite as long as the public is sufficiently well-informed. The author does not see any problem with something called "the tyranny of the majority", where laws are determined by bean-counting and some 49% of the society is NOT represented in the law.
To illustrate, I think it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that none of the civil rights legislation passed in the 1960's would have been passed at all if passage had relied on plebiscites. White racism was simply too overwhelmingly strong in too many parts of the country--racism is still strong today!--so that any advisory referendum would have seen civil rights take a nosedive. Informing those people in the 1960's of how segregation worked and how extensive it was, etc., would not have changed many white minds. That legislation, along with the Great Society laws, was forced through Congress by LBJ who had the insight to look segregation in the eye without denying its moral perversity and without giving in to the "interests" of the Democratic Party, and then do something to "fix" the problem. That steadfast gaze is one of the crucial differences between "information" and "judgment." Courage is another.
Patience is another. And so on.
These are personal virtues, not information. They're needed for making judgments that benefit an entire population, whether national or global. In the global business-dominated climate we're living in today there are precious few people in power--and precious few politicians--who possess those virtues.
Aaron Swartz's assessment of Bernie Sanders follows these lines, I think. Swartz, working with Alan Grayson's office, came to the conclusion that it matters who was elected; you couldn't expect to get real improvements by electing someone who's vile, corruptible, indifferent, etc., and then pressuring them from outside the halls of politics.
It also matters who the voters--in other words, the people--are, if you're going to try to rule decently by plebiscite.
We're Already Breaking Up The Media
Blogs such as The Caucus are taking the places vacated by the local newspapers which aren't economically viable anymore. We give people a place to state their positions without having to limit the column-inches used so that the sponsor's ad isn't impinged.
Internet call-in shows are replacing the domination of Hate Radio's monopoly on the people's air waves. And social media adds an aspect which no other previous form of media could ever touch - direct connection (if one so chooses to participate).
It's under way. The Colossus will fall.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
Don't absolve the DNC
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/11/elevating-trump/
Right --
It really does seem quite likely that Donald Trump, a good friend of the Clintons, was pretty much asked to clear the way for Hillary's ascension to the Presidency.
"there's something so especially sadistic about waving the flag of a country that you're actively destroying" -- Aaron Mate
The article also exposes the media as complicit
The Counterpunch article should be brought to the attention of as many people as possible. This whole thing has been a put-up job from the get-go, and America, and the world, is well and truly screwed.
Now interviewing signature candidates. Apply within.
Thanks for the link! Nice to
Thanks for the link! Nice to see media publishing the obvious, for a change! lol
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
From Counterpunch.......
There is no more to say.
You're forgetting Clinton.
The fact that Hillary Clinton was always the anointed Democratic presidential candidate helped open the door for Trump. With the media in her pocket, nobody felt the need to give hew weak candidacy any scrutiny and virtually all of the media ignored the Bernie Sanders alternative. Hillary's candidacy allowed Trump to frame himself as the outsider running against the establishment candidate.
So how in the world did a crazy person like Clinton get as far
as she did?
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
This is her only chance and she's throwing everything at it.
She is an ambitious sociopath, without empathy for common people, and she knows that this is her last chance for the brass ring. She's between a rock and a hard place, because she needs the votes of the little people even though she doesn't like those little people much. Its hard to keep up the pretense day after day on the campaign trail, and thus she needs lots of time off from it.
Her health will have deteriorated in four years, so it is now or never. Determination or desperation, whatever you want to call it, can be a real force.
Hillary wants it for herself; otherwise she would be gracious about supporting a younger woman (who is not her daughter) before the public eye. Mentoring the next generation to step through the glass ceiling on her shoulders, instead of pushing only herself through it.
And it doesn't matter if the voters want her or not, because her friends and allies will help her where the voters fall short. Who needs real voters when you have vote riggers?
/s
It's all about her.
A massive egotist pretending to care about anyone else.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
How did a crazy person like Hllary get to be anything?
She laughed at being responsible for Gaddafi's death; she laughed at the prospect of bombing Iran; she laughed at having re-victimized a young rape victim and she tells delusional stories about being attacked by a little girl in an airport, about trying to enlist in the Marines, etc. And that's only what we have on video!
Oh, and did I mention megalomania, narcissism, sociopath, bigotry and rampany hypocrisy? She's nucking futs. Yet, she became Senator, Secretary of State and appears to be on track for the Oval Office.
The country has jumped the shark. TV execs supposedly loving Trump is the least of our worries.
BTW, I would not be the least bit surprised if Moonves is not being 100% honest about the role media played in this primary and this election and why it did so.
I honestly think she is a worse human being than Trump.
And he's barely human.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
... delusional stories about
.
Not that I don't believe her capable of making up such stories, (complete with loaded and rattling-fired Uzi or whatever little girls carry these days, lol,) or even doubt that there are plenty of bright informed kids who actually would give her verbal hell, possibly even hurl a stuffed animal at her knees, but nothing about that's showing up on search for me - got any links handy, pretty-please? I'm intensely curious, now.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Wasn't he being sarcastic
about her lying that she landed in Bosnia under sniper fire? Clinton kept telling that story until someone came up with the actual video footage, and it showed a Bosnia school girl meeting her on the tarmac.
Yep, that be the story.
That's a reference to THE airport story, where she was
supposedly under sniper fire, but the video showed her being greeted by a young girl.
What seems crazy to us is easy-peasy
for a psychopath like Hillary. Psychos go where others fear to tred; that's why you'll find them preponderantly among CEOs, world leaders, career politicians, megachurch pastors. They literally believe they are superior to others, never wrong, have no feelings of empathy, and will do whatever it takes to prevail: murder, lies, theft, ruination of anyone who stands in their way, disregard of laws.