I agree with ardee.  To go on (and yet reiterate) I think the focus on content is a diversion.  The content of the mainstream media was pretty bad for decades before the present decline occurred.  Obviously what has happened is that changes in the industrial technology of information distribution have taken place (i.e. the Internet) and the MSM did not get on top of it—maybe could not get on top of it, because its physical, especially its topological model, is so different from the ones they had previously created and rested on.  Specifically, the old media were either one-to-one (telephone and telegraph) or few-to-many (newspaper, radio, television, books, magazines, etc.)  The new medium, the Internet, is many-to-many.  There may be ways of dominating it for commercial and political exploitation but these have not been developed yet.  Moreover the Internet is rapidly developing and changing in ways that are hardly perceived much less understood or controlled.

John Hanks, November 4 at 3:05 am

I would offer that the main purpose of the media is to sell advertising and make a profit. A side effect of such is concealment.

I think that the issue of shrinking job opportunities
for mainstream journalists is an object lesson in the
inevitable results of playing along with corruption.
It’s somewhat difficult to summon load of pity for
this disappearance of writing jobs since it has
resulted from a public loss of trust that has been
completely self-inflicted.

Whether you are a police officer, a print journalist,
an educator, a soldier or virtually any other craft
that involves/serves the public interest, you are
signing your own death warrant when you dance with
the devil of corruption. Many of these same reporters
now out of work were just years ago smirking about
how gullible the public was. Who’s smirking now?

While mainstream TV journalism (such as it is) has
not yet manifested the degree of financial collapse
that the print media is undergoing, their is mounting
evidence that the structure is indeed weakening.
Presently they are still too valuable as a mouthpiece
for government=corporate agendas to be “allowed” to
fail…which is to say they are being massively
subsidized as well as massively consolidated.

It is therefore very reasonable to postulate that
even in the television arena, there will not be much
of a mainstream media for long. What survives will
not resemble what we have today very much at all. By
the way, that’s a good thing!

What the TV people evidently don’t understand is that
they could salvage the situation by telling the truth
all of the time. Of course, that’s not going to
happen. The reporters and producers will goose-step
their way into financial and professional ruin
instead. By the way, that’s a good thing too!

Fat Freddy—I think it’s necessary to look at more than the government; I think you have to look at the state as a whole.  By state I mean the whole structure of coercion and coercive relations in a society, of which the government is only the cutting edge, the instrument.  Attempting to do away with the state by violence or by precipitating a collapse will only lead to another state if ordinary people’s values and practices remain the same, for the state grows out of daily life.  Thus, I don’t think even the mediated violence of winner-take-all elections and libertarian constitutions is going to solve the essential problem, which is the basing of the social order in coercion and inequality, although restrictions on the power of the government (or other state institutions) might generally be expected to reduce the harms they create.

I found this sort of interesting:

http://www.splicetoday.com/politics-and-media/five-key-reasons-why-newspapers-are-failing

The author emphasizes content more than I would—I think the main problem with mainstream newspapers is economic—but he includes that, and criticizes both the business and the cultural model as well.  (That is, the poor administrative practices and the poor content.)

The question is about journalism.  This particular issue is something I have been around the block on for quite some time. I have worked as a journalist, have led protests against a local paper, have worked in political campaigning and community organizing, and have been an interested observer for about 3 decades now. 

I submit the website reference below as an example of something.  I might have written an article for a newspaper or a magazine (in fact I have done so) about this work, but then it would have been quickly buried in the avalanche of irrelevance that we are all buried in every day.  How does one escape that?

The real problem newspapers (also any media) have been having for decades now, is that our society has gotten more complex and the business model for delivering news, especially locally, has gotten more and more McDonaldized.

I developed this website, for a photographer who has been doing work that would have been picked up by Life in its heyday, because of the need to seek a new departure for work that insightfully looks at reality. 

The reason you don’t see a fully humanitarian embrace of reality in the media very much is the same reason you won’t see it consistently in art galleries.  The consumer culture has turned us all into audience members who criticize the entertainment value of what is presented, instead of seeking more meaning.

Thus, commercial interests haven’t just taken over TV content, they have been pretty successful at turning society into a shopping mall where politics isn’t seen as a particularly entertaining option. 

I see the web as having some chance of being a place where the original concept of a marketplace of ideas that informs an enlightened public can happen. 

But we are in early days.  We are in need of putting energy into innovating ways to use the opportunities we have to re-invent public discourse, and to ensure that the web isn’t suborned by the commercial interests the way other media enterprises have been.

This is the work of photographer Alan Pogue, of Austin, Tx:
http://www.documentaryphotographs.com

I listen to Amy Goodman’s show quite often.  I am fortunate to live in a town where the NPR station happens to support Democracy Now.  Many other places do not.  This is another reason why the web is important.  At least local special interests cannot block content - for now.

When you look at a website you see the content.  You might not observe the link-backs, the links that are on other websites to this site.  This represents a constellation of groups and individuals across the world who are inter-linked and who share a way to keep track of what is going on in the world.  It is this aspect that makes a difference and creates an interesting prospect for innovative ways of working that can transcend our current limitations.

Anarcissie,

I think you’ve touched on some pretty good points. But I don’t think the wealthy really want to see a collapse of the financial system. However, I do know a few Anarchist types that would love to see that, so they can scarf up all of the red meat of the politically and economically privileged (so they think).

Any way you look at it, though, there’s always a need for resource allocation. That is why there will away be a ruling class. There will always be those who are “better suited” for handling these resources. This will eventually lead to excessive concentration of resources. But never underestimate the arrogance or greed of the human psyche when this happens. As long as there is a real free market, there will be challengers. These “challengers”, will be able to offer better goods and services at lower prices than their greedy, arrogant counter parts. Without having government to protect the assets of the wealthy, these micro revolutionaries, will cause the mighty to fall and their assets will be redistributed amongst the smaller, more competitive. Government need only act as a referee, of sorts. And government needs to provide “relief valves” of “fail safes”. For example, when a group of banks, or a single bank becomes so large that it poses a “systemic risk” to the entire economic system, it needs to be broken up, or coerced to divest a sizable amount of assets. I don’t like that word either, but in this specific case, I believe it is necessary. And remember, no monopoly was ever achieved without government intervention.

I understand this is a very complex balancing act. And those with money will ultimately be able to influence government. Which is why I propose limiting the power of government. Government, like any business, can’t sell what it doesn’t have to offer.

I believe you touched on a very interesting point. That is personal and civic responsibility. But more on that later.

Fat Freddy:
’... So what is your solution? ...’

Your question is too generic.  For those who received bailout money, for instance, huge bailouts are a very good solution, at least until the monetary system collapses; and they have probably bought gold or something else to keep them comfortable wherever they plan to hide out when the roof comes down.  In general, the very well-off can handle and even enjoy the booms and busts of capitalism, although they do set up pretty elaborate institutions to control their own risks.

For ordinary people, I’d suggest turning away from traditional capitalism and building an economic and political society based on equality, cooperation and non-coercion.  Such a society would be rather dull and it certainly wouldn’t develop as fast as a traditional capitalist society, but it would be a lot more comfortable for most people to live in.  However, people in general are very far from taking care of their own business in this way (or any other); they still trust a ruling class to do it for them, and suffer the consequences.  To effect my solution you’d have to change people’s minds and culture, and minds and culture are slow to change.

I run around advocating change in this direction, but people don’t take me very seriously so far.  Sometimes, external or random forces move things along.  The Internet, for example, seems to be destroying the corporate media which hitherto pretty much controlled public discourse; the results of that will be unpredictable.

Just because the government says it isn’t fraud, doesn’t mean that it isn’t. In my book, it’s fraud. Or better yet, legal trickery. It is not indicative of a free market. And free market forces were not allowed to “weed out” these phony investments due to government interference.

But I think you’re missing the point. Whenever government pumps that much money into the economy (in this case low interest rates) there will be, sure as shit, an investment bubble somewhere.

Fat Freddy, August 14 at 9:04 pm

“This whole financial mess regarding credit derivatives is not a result of a lack of regulation. “

Sorry but it is indeed exactly that. Phil Gramm and his adorable and equally amoral wife, Wendy, worked very hard indeed to end the regulatory powers of government on the financial community. They did it, not for the belief in such as a “free market” but for the bushels and bushels of money they got from
the industry for doing so.

Why else did Phil so painstakingly add the deregulation of said derivatives to the tail of an omnibus bill placed before a lame duck Congress and an equally lame duck President only moments before their respective terms expired?

My understanding is many of those outstanding CDSs will eventually just expire. No harm no foul, right? Wrong.

This whole financial mess regarding credit derivatives is not a result of a lack of regulation. It is fraud, plain and simple. There are laws against fraud. But the government refuses to act. More government interference (or lack thereof).

I support an agency that will review any new financial products. Similar to the way the FDA reviews new drugs. I believe I addressed consumer safety and protection, earlier, along with fraud.

When I speak of regulation, I speak of government intervention. Intervention which specifically favors large, wealthy corporations and individuals over smaller competitive businesses.

I get the feeling you think I’m arguing from a big business point of view. You couldn’t be more wrong. I am a small business owner and Entrepreneur. And small and medium sized businesses are the backbone of this country. 

The entire financial/credit meltdown is a direct result of government intervention. Intervention which specifically gave competitive advantages to big corporations. And the misguided central planning of the Federal Reserve. Had the free market been allowed to flourish, we would have gone through a series of small recessions. These small recessions are a part of the normal business cycle. For a brief description of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory see:

http://mises.org/story/672

For a better explanation of the financial crisis, watch this video.

http://mises.org/multimedia/video/Woods_04-03-2009.wmv

You don’t have to agree with everything this guy says, but perhaps you will start to understand how it was not lack of government regulation of business, but more like lack of government regulation of government.

Fat Freddy, August 14 at 8:54 am #

Actually, and sadly, many folks now know what a credit default swap is, and you go on explain after saying noone knows….

As to this canard from you:

“But not really. Why? Because every body that bought a CDS got paid when they cashed them in.”

I give you:

............................................................
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/09/credit-default-swaps-outstanding.html
 

Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Credit Default Swaps Outstanding Shrinks as Dealers Tear Up Agreements
Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com
The International Swaps and Derivatives Association reported that the notional amount of credit default swaps outstanding fell from $62 trillion to a bit under $55 trillion as dealers worked to eliminate offsetting trades.

This is a step forward, although it is hard to assess how significant it is. While the reduction in systemic risk is almost certain to be less than the fall in outstandings, eliminating offsetting contracts still eliminates possible points of failure. And if these offsetting contracts were not bi-lateral (ie between the same two dealers, which I would assume to be true in most cases), the net reduction is risk is greater. The fewer moving parts, the better.

Of course, this clean-up effort also comes as threats to regulate the market are getting louder. Nevertheless, a market like CDS is no stronger than its weakest link, which is this case is its shakiest large dealer. But how large you have to be to threaten the daisy chain is an unknown. Let’s hope we don’t get the answer via real-world experience.

Any comments from those with direct knowledge would be very much appreciated.

From Bloomberg:

  The credit-default swap market, used to hedge against bond losses and speculate on corporate credit risk, shrank for the first time as efforts to eliminate duplicate trades cut contracts outstanding by 12 percent.

  The volume of outstanding trades fell to $54.6 trillion from $62 trillion in the first half, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association said in a statement today. It was the first decline since ISDA started surveying traders in 2001.

  ``This decrease primarily reflects the industry’s efforts to reduce risk by tearing up economically offsetting transactions and demonstrates the industry’s ongoing commitment to reduce risk and enhance operational efficiency,’’ ISDA Chief Executive Officer Robert Pickel said in the statement. ``We expect to see more effects of this over time.’‘...

  The market has likely shrunk even more since ISDA’s poll after one of the 10 largest market-makers, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., filed for bankruptcy this month. ISDA’s survey captured trading as of June 30.

  ``I would expect that if they were to re-poll next week, you would see an even smaller number from netting activities and trade cancellations surrounding the Lehman Brothers default,’’ said Brian Yelvington, a strategist at CreditSights Inc. in New York.

  After the March collapse of securities firm Bear Stearns Cos., 17 banks that handle about 90 percent of the trading in credit derivatives agreed to a list of initiatives to curb market risks. That included tearing up trades that offset each other, which cuts down on the day-to-day payments, paperwork and monitoring by bank staffs and reduces the potential for errors. It also may reduce the amount of capital that commercial banks are required to hold against the trades on their books.

..........................

It seems that Bloomberg thinks not everyone had gotten paid…at least in Sept of last year.

The point remains however, the same one you obfuscate, unregulated capitalism leads to such as this.

Anarcissie

So what is your solution? Sure equities and commodities present a unique circumstance. But they are part of the investment and business cycle. And people with money will always have more influence over the government. Which is why I propose limiting that power. And also, government can only give power when it has power to offer. The power of government should rest in the hands of the people, not a select group of investors and corporations. The free market is very well equipped to deal with greed and arrogance. So long as the government is not allowed to stack the deck. It’s all about small and new businesses being allowed to flourish and compete with those dusty old conservative corporations. Not about giving the government the power to regulate those businesses. Regulation only stagnates the economy.

The government does not have the ability to run an economy or a business. Government is run by politicians, not businessmen and not common folk. And that will never change. It can not change.  A government run by anything other than politicians is not a government. A business run by politicians, is not a business. A religion run by its parishioners is not a religion. Someone needs to make the decisions. Who will that be? You, me, the masses? No. Decisions are made by the politicians we elect. But politicians are not equipped to make decisions regarding monetary principles, resource allocation or investments. These decisions can only be made by the people, through their free exchange of goods and services (not conscious).  When problems arise, then it is the role of government to step in and provide temporary measures to solve the problem at hand. Then move on.

Example: Four banks control 40% of all deposists, and 50% of all assets.

Solution: Systemic risk institutions that are too big or inter-connected to manage, regulate
or fail should either be broken up or required to divest sufficient assets so that
they no longer pose a systemic risk.

Simple.

Read all of it here:

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/jorde031709.pdf

When banks, businesses or individuals get too big, it’s time for the government axe and a “yard sale”.

Fat Freddy:
’... Like I said, government needs to get the fuck out of the way of the free market. ...’

The government doesn’t need this.  The more government, the better its business is.

You probably mean something like, “In the greater scheme of things, for the great common good, we need government to get out of the way of the free market.”  Outside of the fact that there can be no such thing as a free market, at least where major items like equities and commodities are concerned, there is a major problem determining whose good is the most common.  Important capitalists think their good, that is, their balances, are the most common good, and since they more or less own and operate the Federal government—check the recent political contributions of the financial industry—they get what they want, which are massive regulation and subsidies designed to let them play while others pay.  (Not just the recent bailouts; check out the S&L fandango of the Reagan era.)

This is not going to end any time soon, even if there is a major collapse of the U.S. economy and a shift to the tutelage of some other great power.  No one with billions at stake is going to let it hang out in the wind.  If you want a free market, stick to yard sales.

FENWICK

Well please, enlighten me. My explanation was limited to the question at hand - Credit Default Swaps.
I intentionally left out subsidized housing.

For a more detailed explanation, try this:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp110.pdf

You will see that it was Federal monetary policies and subsidized housing that were responsible. Along with misplaced regulations, designed to benefit the larger, investment firms. Providing for an unfair competitive advantage.

And now, a rewarding of bad investment choices to a select few firms. More misguided government intervention, not free market economics.

Government interference into the free market on all counts.

I don’t think the Cato Institute is considered MSM. Do you?

People are confused. They think that what we have now, is free market capitalism. It is not! Not even close. Socialism will only give more power to the government. A government which is not equipped to manage an economy of this size. We need to take power away from the government and big corporations.

How? Term limits, real campaign finance reform, and the elimination of the two party system, to start. Then, and only then, will government be in a position to allow a free market economy to function.

Fat Freddy, your explanation of the financial meltdown sounds like the nicely packaged narrative that was being put forth by the MSM, Frontline et al, complete with namecalling.
There’s a helluva lot more to it than that, and we are just about at the last swirl before we all go down the drain, save a few, shall we say, CEOs, lucky investors and old money.

(cont)

So, why were Treasuries yielding such low interest rates? Now we’re at the crux of the problem. The Federal Reserve Bank, in all of their wisdom, for various reasons, decided to keep interest rates artificially low. The Fed is directly responsible for interest rates, and the amount of available money/credit. By keeping interest rates low, and money supply high, it was believed that it would stimulate the economy. It did, for a while. But any time a central bank keeps interest rates that low, for that long, it creates an investment bubble somewhere in the economy. In this case, housing.

Central banking is at the heart of all Socialized economies. It was mismanagement of the economy, by the government, which caused this financial meltdown. Like I said, government needs to get the fuck out of the way of the free market.

BTW - Please do not confuse “supply-side” economics, or “Reaganomics” (trickle down) with free market economics. Reagan lied when he said he believed in “free markets”.

ardee, ardee, ardee

Do you know what a credit default swap is? Neither do I. Nobody really does.

Basically, a CDS (not controlled dangerous substance) is an “insurance policy” on a bond. Specifically, a collarteralized debt obligation (CDO), or mortgage backed security.  It is an insurance policy without any capital (money) backing. Sort of like buying a $1,000,000 life insurance policy from a company that doesn’t have $1,000,000 in capital behind it. This falls into the “fraud” category. Yes, those 20 or so assholes at AIGs financial products division are guilty of fraud!

But not really. Why? Because every body that bought a CDS got paid when they cashed them in. AIG drew on capital from other divisions of the company. They are/were the largest insurance company in the world. This, of course, caused AIGs stock prices to tumble. Eventually bankrupting the company. So, the fraud, was actually on the bond/share holders of the company. And the ratings agencies that used AIGs AAA status on these CDSs and CDOs are also guilty of fraud, to a degree.

But see, this should have been part of the natural business cycle. A company gets so big that eventually, they get greedy and arrogant (among other things). So, they end up going bankrupt, for various reasons (or end up having to sell off some of their assets). Then, their assets are sold and redistributed to other smaller companies that are not yet greedy or arrogant, at rock bottom prices, of course (in the case of bankruptcy).

The problem was that the government decided to step in and save their asses. Why? Well, AIG was a little too big for even market forces to handle. I suspect, there were government subsidies and tax breaks going to AIG which helped them to get as big as they did. Part of that government induced unfair competitive advantage I like to talk about. Plus, assets should have been sold off in order to provide the necessary capital backing on those CDSs, and they weren’t.

And, add this to the fire: AIG is an insurance company. They write many business insurance policies, such as liability and Worker’s Comp. Had AIG gone into an unstructured bankruptcy, many of those businesses would have abruptly lost their insurance. Causing them to have to close their doors until a new policy could be found. A business can not operate for a single minute without insurance.

So, why did AIG sell so damn many of these CDSs? Because they were selling the Mortgage Backed Securities along with them. It’s estimated that AIG alone was responsible for a few trillion dollars worth of mortgages. How? AIG didn’t write any mortgages you say? No, they didn’t. They bought them from banks and mortgage brokers. Why would a mortgage broker give a rats ass about whether someone could afford to pay back a mortgage if they new that a company like AIG was going to buy it? They didn’t. In fact, AIG was pressuring banks and mortgage brokers to write more and more. There were not enough mortgages out there to meet the demands of private investors.

What caused this huge demand (or investment bubble)? Interest rates and safety. Many of the individuals, businesses and foreign governments that bought mortgage backed securities would have normally bought Treasury Bonds. Treasuries are extremely safe and secure. But, a 10 year Treasury was only yielding about 2.5% interest, sometimes less. MBSs were yielding 6-7%. And with their AAA status, they were considered as safe as Treasuries. Normally, they probably would have been. So, investors stopped buying Treasuries, and started buying MBSs at an alarming rate.

“Sure, there needs to be regulations concerning consumer safety and against fraud. And mostly provide a level playing field. But other than that, government needs to get the fuck out of the way and let the free market, free competition system function the way it is supposed to. The consumer benefits the most in a truly free market system.”

Gee Freddy have you already forgotten ‘credit default swaps’? That is what happens when govt “gets out of the way”. In a completely unregulated free market system the consumer gets screwed, royally. Hey, next time you speak to Phil and Wendy Gramm, give them the finger for me…...

Hey TruthDig:

Have you considered finding volunteers to post transcripts?  40 to 50 percent of us do not have access to affordable high-speed connections, and downloading even one of these clips on dial-up takes at least 15 minutes to a half hour.  (And yes, that means we miss out on a lot of cute YouTube time wasters, which actually may be for the best.)

Just sayin’.

“We need a wall constructed of the same material as the one between government and Religion.”

Ummm, you need to read Jeff Sharlet.  Any of us from Washington already knew a little about The Family, but he blows it wide open, kind of like the big bad wolf that blew the house down.  So much for your wall, which right now exists only in the writings of Jefferson.  And the mess in Colorado Springs is enough to make a person ill.

There is no wall anymore, at least not among fundamentalists.

As for the Fair Marketplace?  Take that idea out to your local Mom and Pops and they’ll tell you just how fair the marketplace is when “corporatism” favors only large corporations.  Which, by the way, create A FRACTION of the good jobs created by small business.  And just how fair is it that a bunch of rich idiots are still rich when the people they shafted have lost their homes?  Sorry, don’t give me that BS about people making bad decisions.  That’s blaming the victim.  If some bank came to you and said you could afford that 500 grand house you’ve admired for years, what would you say?  And don’t tell me you wouldn’t seriously consider it.  We’re human, that’s what we do, we have a chance at the gold ring, we take it, and that behavior was EXACTLY what these derivatives were designed to exploit.  Yes, people made bad decisions.  Bad decisions that should never have existed the marketplace to begin with because they would do exactly what they did, DESTROY THE FRICKING ECONOMY.  Geesh.

The media is dangerous to citizens for reason that the media can determine who wins or loses.

If you are not visible, usually a media decision, then you lose.

We are trying to make Hoi Huynh visible.

Thursday August 13, 2009 13:02

From: “Hoi Huynh” .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
To: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:38:19 PM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
Subject: Re: okay?
Thanks a million!
Hoi Huynh

http://home.comcast.net/~bpayne37/hoi/hoi.htm#post2

And we are making YOU, msm corp/gov, more visible.

http://home.comcast.net/~bpayne37/whitman59/whitman59after.htm#deargeorge

Now we go for our stolen $22,036.00

You liberal arts grads.

Dude,

Ellen Goodman is awesome!  This is the first time I’ve heard her speak.  Wow.

Ardee,

Slanted news is sensationalistic. And news that is reported that is meant to cater to a specific audience in order to boost sales, distribution and market share is sensationalist. Maddow, Olberman, Limbaugh, Beck and Dobbs are all examples of sensationalistic journalism. And unfortunately, more and more Americans are relying on these people to get the news they need want.

The word “free” seems to mean unregulated. I agree that thoughts and ideas should be expressed freely but we are in this mess precisely because govt failed to regulate business practices.

No. Government did regulate business. But they did it specifically (in many ways), that benefited large corporations over small and medium sized businesses. It’s small and medium sized businesses that provide most of the competition to the system. So now we have a few large corporations controlling each sector of the free market without any real competition. Do you shop at Target or Wal-Mart? Home Depot or Lowes? Coke or Pepsi? Rite aid or Walgreens? There are specific regulations that give these corporations unfair competitive advantages over small businesses. Mostly in the form of taxes and insurance. Large corporations specifically and intentionally lobby the government to institute these regulations and snuff out competition. The “Cola Wars” of the 80s was not about competition, it was about greed and arrogance.

And this is not just the case in the retail sectors. There may be several window air conditioner brands to choose from, but there are only three companies that manufacture the compressors (the most important and expensive part).

This is also the case in the MSM.

Sure, there needs to be regulations concerning consumer safety and against fraud. And mostly provide a level playing field. But other than that, government needs to get the fuck out of the way and let the free market, free competition system function the way it is supposed to. The consumer benefits the most in a truly free market system.

Having said that, I seriously doubt that there can be a truly free market system for health care.

“Far from the maddening Crowd”.
I am sick of being Yelled at by psuedo journalists and beauty pageant Queens.
I’m a sick of being force feed the personal ‘perspective’.
It’s not just the Neo Cons, but also the ‘conserva Dems’ and the ‘progressives’.
Neo cons- your policies didn’t just Fail- they were a disaster- so sit down and shut up.
ConservaDems (Clintonites)- She Lost, Get over it.
Progressives- So did your candidates, so ‘get over it’too.
From Becks “hates the White culture” to Maddow’s ‘suckered the gay community’, I’m inundated with myopic perspectives.
Heres a question if Rush Limbaugh loves this country so much, is fearful for it’s destiny- why not run for Public office? In that same vein, why has Nadar not done so at the Congressional or Senatorial level? Two sides of the same coin- all talk and no action. Really what has Nadar DONE since Seatbelts and Covairs?Considering Consumer protection has been dismal for decades, he’s failed even at his proclaimed ‘passion’.
More often than not these two fringes work to incite each other instead of solving anything. And the Left is no different than the other Right wing shock jocks of media. Come on Lefties you have been calling Obama an extension of Bush- Please! You might as well have been calling him a Nazi too, since W’s Regime is the closest this country’s seen to totalitarianism.
Lefties also feed the delusion that all can be changed (remedied or ruined) in a matter of 6 months!
Righties expect apocalypse and Lefties expect Waldens Pond-
This economic collapse took decades of hard work by corp america, and the idiots who kept voting in their Frontmen.
Why do the rest of US call you both the ‘fringe’ because your perceptions and expectations lie on the outskirts of reality. Seems the Far right and the Far Left are the ones who have attibuted ‘Godly’ powers to Obama. He’ll not only solve (or create) all our problems going forward, he is able to erase the history which instigated them to begin with.
Corp control over the economy has been going on since the Robber Barons,Wallstreet Heists since ‘29, problems with N.Korea since the 50’s, Iran since the ‘70’s, Afghanistan and Iraq the ‘80’s, losing middleclass jobs since the ‘90s, fighting pollution since the ‘70’s, Civil Rights since time & memorial.
As a Kucinich primary voter, I am not surprised nor disappointed with the decisions Obama has made in light of the absolute Cluterfuck he was handed by all his predecessors.
‘If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem’.
As much as the Far Right is not helping this country Remain United and the Far Left is not helping US progress towards our potential.The World nor the Country will be destroyed or Reborn tomorrow, folks.

Fat Freddy, August 12 at 12:51 pm #

The biggest problem with the MSM is Sensationalism. This is by no means a new phenomenon.

The biggest problem with mass media is slanted news or unreported news.

And Socialism is not the answer. Not even close. I don’t trust the government any more than I trust Exxon/Mobile. The problem is the relationship that has developed between the two. It’s called Corporatism. We need a wall constructed of the same material as the one between government and Religion. Government need only insure a fair marketplace.

Understanding Socialism might be key to accepting it in your government. Under such a system the people run the govt rather than , as you note, the corporations having final say.

The free exchange of goods and services is as important to a free society as the free exchange of thoughts and ideas.

The word “free” seems to mean unregulated. I agree that thoughts and ideas should be expressed freely but we are in this mess precisely because govt failed to regulate business practices.

Amy Goodman talks a good talk.  Write to her with
story ideas and see how many answers you get.  I
wrote to her with ideas for helping children from
requiring child development and family relations
courses for junior high and/or high school students
to passing legislation limiting class size to 15
students from K-4th grade.  I spent my entire career
in education from teaching educational psychology,
child development, and family relations at major
universities to serving as school psychologist for
public school systems.  NEVER HEARD A WORD FROM HER!

Will a podcast be made available?

Part 1

Thanks Amy & All,

As usual, inspiring & encouraging to hear you speak, I hardly waste any time and get right back on my horse.

I thought the question about who shall train the “new journalists”, those that are either becoming journalists, because of the decades long media melt down, or those that (have been) journalist got screwed & were misguided over the same period and melt down, well, I thought the actual and/or implied answer to this question was too familiar.

It may be, that information that can be accurately described by most journalists, up to now, may not originate from a deep enough level, despite the fact the “revelation” or “uncovering” which is the primary intent of a piece, is profound, and even in some cases saves a life, actually and/or metaphorically.

The emphasis on, the revelation of, and/or the uncovering from, some hidden, obscure or even unknown agenda or occurrence, well, may not carry the desired effect(to the street) simply because of its’ degree of importance to a civilized society, or because it is of the best ideal(whatever promoted the particular journalistic inquiry into the matter).  You see, it seems to me, articulating accurately what is wrong or unjust does not carry with it, automatically, the remedy, or some alternative way it might have been done, and even worse , infrequently offers up a new(viable) method or approach to the problem.

What I am getting at, is the “training of journalists”, traditionally, and un-traditionally(for sure need that) but what about a Ph.D. in economics, sociology, physics, political science, psychiatry, etc… also, as part of a new breed of journalists. Why not have journalists be so, but with these other specialty trainings, in the form of higher degrees?  Not becoming journalist, after the fact of these additional degrees, but rather only acquiring these degrees to in fact be a new breed of journalist, an enhanced journalist.

(part 2 is coming)

Rhuen Phreed
11 Marlborough Street
Boston, MA

Part 2

Maybe raise money to send current journalists to become leaders in other fields, but again, only so that journalism becomes grafted to the “good old boy’s networks”, and to breakdown the various barriers to “professional information” so that it becomes accessible and shared directly with the public. The effort may need to remain secret, deliberately vague, or some version of the “don’t tell if not asked” type of policy. No doubt an encounter with a sort of McCarthyism will ensue, to weed out higher education journalists from the traditionally exclusive ranks. 100 years of such infiltration into the ranks of the “good old boys” will cause a breakdown in the secret decision making machine that has run things into the ground up to now.  Of course, make sure that the journalists picked for this effort get their degrees for free.

The type of journalism, that you represent Amy, needs a 100 year plan. What you have done, and plan to bring on line, well,  is fantastic and greatly needed, but money needs to be raised to equip, those who can handle the academic workload, and are journalists,  well, equip a highly educated breed of journalists with the traditionally exclusive information and networks, giving them direct access to information & networks that historically have been the cause of so much injustice. Maybe a 2-3 tare system of journalists, to allow for direct penetration into these exclusive information & policy making clubs.

Maybe the 3 tared, multi-faceted approach would be like;

1.stop the demise of the media(uncovering democratic weaknesses in monopolies of media)
2.free training, in effective, alternative means of professional journalistic method(paid for with private funds)
3.send 300 qualified journalists, for free, each year,  to get their Ph.D’s in all the most important areas of academic study. I suppose a more formal and organized version of the citizen journalists that has become so vital today.(degrees paid for by a national, privately funded,  organization)

Of course the above three would be coordinated, and at some point work firmly together to not only safeguard freedom of the press, but have it sown into the basics, the real time basic structures of society.

(part 3 is coming)

Rhuen Phreed
11 Marlborough Street
Boston, MA

Part 3

I am a bit unsure about the “non-profit” status you have mentioned. Going that way will not allow a sincere political affiliation, or tendency,, and it will have big brother breathing down your necks. It would only take another imbalanced supreme court to set a precedent which defines away the effectiveness of journalism that has a non-profit status. There is nothing wrong with using certain business entities, that are traditionally thought of as “structures of greed & corruption” in a more wise manner, but importantly hedge against the delicate political issue of taking political sides and be under the restraint of a non-profit status. 

You hand pick 30 great journalists today, pay all their expenses,  to go and acquire their Ph.D.‘s in economics, military strategy, finance/banking, and/or police tactics, etc..,  from the best schools in the country, well, it will be just a matter of 5-10 years before we have a new league of journalists who not only can uncover & describe what is going on, accurately, but can offer alternatives other than just implying some un-detailed antithesis should have been done instead.

If these journalists come out debt-free they will not be held ransom by their debt, and be able to stay loyal to their primary reason for acquiring their degrees, to get the truth out to the public, but now with an enhanced ability to make policy.  Some portion will stray and be seduced, after all the money can be huge, but a good portion would stay true to the effort. Hey, imagine sending 100 great journalists to Harvard Law School or Harvard Business School for free, journalists who will remain journalist throughout their schooling and stay, “primarily” a journalist for the rest of their professional life.

Of course, the first wave will not get on the inside, but eventually additionally educated in this way, will get far enough inside to not just report on the status quo, but to change it first hand.

I think this is how we are going to crack this nut in the long run. 

Rhuen Phreed
11 Marlborough Street
Boston

LostHills,
“You can’t really have a free press or a real democracy in a capitalist society”.

Hmmm, that is a scary but thoughtful insight.  In listening to Amy talk with hope about the growth of independent media I could not help but think what she is promoting can only ever be a fringe movement or itself become corrupted, and that is simply the nature of the beast.  Still it is worthwhile.

Maybe it’s thanks to Thom Hartmann, the word is getting out.  I recently talked to an unemployed manager in commercial real estate and he understood that this bank bailout money is going mainly to Goldman Sachs.  The banks are borrowing from the Fed at next to zero percent and plowing the money right back into the Fed for five percent interest.  They are not lending it.
I friend who worked for Goddamned Sachs was laid off last fall and with her bonuses and severance pay she is now buying up properties on Cape Cod.
As the real estate guy said, “They only take care of their own.”

I don’t get any news from MSM media or the press anymore.

My wife, who likes Brian Williams, said, “Why can’t Amy envigorate her presentations a little.  Hearing that depressing news at 8:00 am is, well, is depressing.”

The biggest problem with the MSM is Sensationalism. This is by no means a new phenomenon.

And Socialism is not the answer. Not even close. I don’t trust the government any more than I trust Exxon/Mobile. The problem is the relationship that has developed between the two. It’s called Corporatism. We need a wall constructed of the same material as the one between government and Religion. Government need only insure a fair marketplace.

The free exchange of goods and services is as important to a free society as the free exchange of thoughts and ideas.

not sure why but amy goodman nearly brought me to tears in the first clip.  she really hits the nail on the head with her beautifully chosen words about how the media underestimates the young generation’s attention span, and how bringing independent voices attracts more independent voices.  thank you amy and robert for being great leaders.

“By Anarcissie, August 12 at 11:33 am #

”  LostHills:
  ’... You can’t really have a free press or a real democracy in a capitalist society. The sooner we recognize that capitalism is enslaving us, the sooner we can find real solutions to the mess we are in.’

What alternative do you propose, and how do you plan to bring it into being? “

Socialism.  Voting them in would be nice, but like John F. Kennedy said, “Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent revolution inevitable.”

LostHills:
’... You can’t really have a free press or a real democracy in a capitalist society. The sooner we recognize that capitalism is enslaving us, the sooner we can find real solutions to the mess we are in.’

What alternative do you propose, and how do you plan to bring it into being?

If it was up to MSM Corp/Gov media our legal project would have failed for sure.

Disposition of our legal project is still to be determined - but not by the media.

——- Forwarded Message——-
From:bpayne37@comcast.net
To: “Robert Wayland” .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Cc: “art morales” .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address), .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address),boardmail@ncua.gov, .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 7:43:15 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
Subject: our money, ncua and jillson            
bob            

Whitman college inviting ambassador Ryan Crocker to deliver the 2009 commencment address may have not have been too bright in view that Crocker likely helped start the Iraq/Iran war - along with Brzezinski, of course.           

http://home.comcast.net/~bpayne37/whitman59/whitman59after.htm#deargeorge
             
We now try to get our money back through NCUA. 
           
If we get our money back, then NCUA will likely go for Jillson to gets its money back through the New Mexico criminal system.           
But this is not our problem. Our problem is getting our money back.           

If NCUA does not pay, then we can file an insurance fraud claim with the state.       

Let’s all hope for peaceful settlement before matters get worse.

bill

John Gowan of Libertad in Albuquerque commented that the media tries to shape the news, not report it.

The media is largely liberal arts educated which is a problem.

Do not fear the enemy, for your enemy can only take your life. It is far better that you fear the media, for they will steal your HONOR. That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoemaking and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse.

Mark Twain

At the end Robert Scheer says that there are plenty of good journalists out there looking for work, “we just have to figure out how to help them pay their mortgages.” And therein lies the rub. The money can only come from corporate sponsorship and the censorship kicks in. You can’t really have a free press or a real democracy in a capitalist society. The sooner we recognize that capitalism is enslaving us, the sooner we can find real solutions to the mess we are in.

Well, I am experiencing ‘buffering’ problems on the 3 video but already amy goodman has blostered what I learned from Robert Kane Pappas’ dvd ‘Orwell Rolls in His Grave’ which I thought and still think is as best example of the state of the current MSM and why it is like it is, a lying piece of crap that serves the only purpose of disinforming the major mass of people who think that get the ‘news’ from those msm sources.

I have gone over the internet to find the information important to me and I read what I can in books, though some books are several years old from publication, to become better informed so whatever any independent venue comes along to disseminate REAL information I am for it and I believe very much in amy goodman’s DEMOCRACY NOW! and robert scheer’s TRUTHDIG website and I hope that if this goes it will go a long way to get those dependent on MSM channels and cables to see the REAL TRUTH and I hope it finally spells the demize of the charlatans dumbing down a major part of the people of this country that can’t go beyond sitting in their lazyboy recliners flipping channels.

And as amy states in the last video, there is a caution to be alert as to the validity of what is posted on blog sites either in the posted article or especially from the comments to those posts, you know, that old grain of salt theory.