Mainstreet Media

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by wkmac, Sep 30, 2010.

  1. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    The Mainstreet Media outlets in America are owned by a handful of corp. interests which may or may not be good depending on where one finds themselves as in relation to said owners. Now it seems in England that Rupert Murdoch could be close to controlling half of the TV media over there and regardless what his beliefs are, this could be worrisome.

    In light of further consolidation of major media because of shrinking market share, it becomes vital to maintain the independence and openness of the internet and moreso the importance of protecting the freedom of open source bloggers and other information outlets.

  2. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

  3. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

  4. Baba gounj

    Baba gounj pensioner

    Trucks Encircle ABC, CBS, NBC, Challenge ‘Liberal’ Media to ‘Tell The Truth’
    Monday, October 04, 2010
    By Michael W. Chapman

    A Media Research Center "Tell the Truth!" truck ad in downtown New York City.

    ( – Four billboard trucks bearing the message “Stop the Liberal Bias, Tell the Truth!” began circling the Manhattan headquarters of ABC, CBS, NBC, and the New York Times on Friday. The trucks will do so for eight hours every weekday for the next four weeks as part of a campaign run by the Media Research Center, a watchdog group that analyzes the media for liberal bias.
    Similar trucks also are operating in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, passing the offices of the broadcast networks, the Washington Post, CNN, the Newseum, the National Press Club and Politico, and ads about the campaign are running on numerous Web sites and on conservative talk radio programs.
    L. Brent Bozell III, president of the Media Research Center (MRC), the parent organization of, said the goal of this 2010 “Tell the Truth!” campaign “is simple: to force the liberals in the media to stop pushing an agenda and just tell the truth.”
    The “liberal media news networks” need to report the facts about “massive growth in government and its control over our lives, and about spending, deficits and debt,” he told “They also need to tell the truth about the efforts to turn our country into a European-style Socialist state.”
    In Washington, D.C., there are also 12 delivery trucks with an identical message. But, as rented ad space, they will run their daily routes in the metro area. Six trucks are also scheduled to run in Denver, Colo.
  5. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Brent Bozell of all people knows the truth and yet he helps create these exercises in futility which will never "strike the root" of the problem to begin with. Look beyond the curtain! I admire the willingness to expend the time and energy but go for the heart!

    And while everyone screams back and forth at each other from the left/right construct, a construct created for herd control IMO, neither side looks in the middle to see who benefits either way while working against both constructs made up of average folk at the end of the day. The right defends the corp. interests under some illusion that this is the free market and that it's this entity from which all jobs must always flow. The left defends gov't as if it is the knight in shining armor who will ride up and protect us from the evil, villiianous "free marketer" that would crush them otherwise without our shining knight. Did either side ever consider this is all a meer theatrical fiction for mass consumption so we look no deeper at how the corp. class and the government class are in fact silent partners neither who want true free markets, even want real limited gov't of any sort or for protecting the little class from being crushed? Did you ever consider the Business Roundtable?

    In a true free market, would it seem to make sense that 25 plus years ago you had 50 major media corporations and now you have 6? All this happened regardless of the fact that gov't and regulatory control grew at unprecedented rates and levels during this time span. If one looks deep, one will see the very reason for this consolidation was because of gov't and the regulatory capture by corp. interests an interest that also benefits the gov't just as well.

    Does it make sense in a true free market as new news entrepreneurs enter that industry on the internet that rubblings from gov't persist about regulating the so-called wild west of the internet? BTW: you might also rethink your view of the so-called (mythical) wild west and who benefits from such an illusion? Did you also ever wonder how a consolidated media from 50 to 6 corporations would make it a cakewalk for gov't to so-call oversee in regulation but also how it's easier to control the message going out to the masses? From the corp. side, such a small group of industry control makes the marketshare most profitable and still allows an industry united front in setting public policy that benefits the bottomline of all.

    These guys are a lot closer than either side of the great unwashed political construct thinks and unless one looks beyond the superficial, you may overlook the most obvious. There really is such a creation as a socialist capitalist but they are not true idealogues but rather just using what they see as the best weapon in controlling the marketplace. In a true freed market, such control would be very tough if not impossible because there is no mechanism of force (the state) in which they can exert their market control.

    When I hear some CEO or big industry rep. decry the "evils of gov't regulation" I hear Brer Rabbit crying,"please don't throw me in the briar patch!" And few people of the so-called right as well as the left rarely know their history and how big gov't/big business alliance (crony or state capitalism) got it's start. Some allege that Obama fashions himself a modern day Lincoln to the wailing and gnashing of teeth from so-called limited state/free market republicans. Once you look again beyond state myth, the truth may be painfully obvious for both democrat and republican loyalists alike but the question is, can they handle that truth?

    The media is nothing more than the tip of a very nefarious iceberg!
  6. curiousbrain

    curiousbrain Well-Known Member

    I'm a little late to the party, but I'll file a response for ... posterity. And, of course, this is all just my opinion; I strictly maintain that I don't actually know anything.

    A "true free market?" That's fairly subjective, but I digress. In almost all free market economies, several players come to dominate because, initially they were run by people who were ahead of the curve, and afterwards there is a fiscal or corporate momentum which carries them to the forefront of the marketplace. The fact that Microsoft dominates the computer operating system market is, while regarded as a monopoly, the result of the invisible hand saying "Gates and Allen had it right in the 70's, and they are still riding that wave" (albeit to a lesser extent these days then they used to). Why is it when the free market boosts a company to first place, then suddenly the market is "rigged" and such?

    This is an emergent phenomenon, is all; and certainly not the first. The fact that the interests of government and business coincide is not because they all sat in a room together and planned it out from the very beginning, but rather that their interests are one and the same - as you stated, a single mouthpiece from which to echo various sentiments. As you intimated, I fully believe that now that the system (of media conglomerates, and all that) is in place that there are concerted efforts on both side to keep it the way it is, but it strikes me as paranoid and devious to suggest that both sides drew up a blueprint a hundred years ago (or some other arbitrary time frame) to make things the way they are.

    Horse hockey. The mechanism of force by which they exert their market control is called money, power, and (perhaps as a result of the first two) influence.

    If there is no way to exert market control and the market is pure chaos and arbitrary, then why would anyone bother going into business? Because then the quality of their product, the power of their lobbyists, and all those other slick tools of capitalism would be a big fat waste of time.

    I'm willing to posit that plenty of them know their history (perhaps more of it then anyone on BrownCafe does), it's just that they extract different lessons/truths/etc from it then you or I do; which is a healthy thing.

    All that said, I will admit I didn't read all the linked articles so it's possible some of my points were addressed in those.
  7. Lue C Fur

    Lue C Fur Evil member

    Feel the hate from the left:

    Palm Beach Post Columnist Slams Parents of Rep. Giffords Doctor for Supporting Tea Party Candidates

    Michael Lemole is a neurosurgeon who has been treating Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. However, that noble work wasn't enough to keep Palm Beach Post Page 2 Live columnist Jose Lambiet (photo) from dragging his parents through the mud for the "high crime" of supporting Tea Party candidates. Somehow Lambiet thinks it ironic that while the son has worked to save the life of Giffords, his parents are associated with a group that Lambiet absurdly claims provided "fertile ground" for the likes of Jared Loughner. Lambiet kicks off his odious column by snarking about how wealthy Lemole's parents appear to be:

    The name of Michael Lemole, the University of Arizona neurosurgeon who’s been treating U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ brain injuries since the Jan. 8 shooting, may sound familiar to Palm Beachers.

    That’s because Lemole’s mom and pop, heart surgeon Gerald Lemole and his wife, Emily, live in a $7.1 million house on The Island. They also own a more modest $3.5 million house, also in Palm Beach.
    Apparently, there is a greater "crime" in the mind of Lambiet than being wealthy. And that is the political crime of being a conservative:

    And while Michael is saving the life of the moderate Democratic congresswoman, Gerald and Emily are more into the far, far Right — including Tea Party goofball Christine O’Donnell!

    According to campaign filings, Lemole’s parents have showered with thousands in contributions — $15,700 in 2010 alone — Tea Party candidates vying for national offices.
    GASP! The parents of Michael Lemole are conservatives and to make matters "worse" they have contributed to such candidates. Send in the Thought Police!

    And now the very strong suggestion from Lambiet that it was Tea Party conservatives who influenced crazed shooter Jared Loughner:

    Ironically: Among their favorites are some of the very people whose controversial rhetoric and campaigns are said to provide a fertile ground for the likes of Jared Loughner, who allegedly injured Giffords and killed six others in Tucson.
    Not satisfied with just sliming the parents of Michael Lemole, Lambiet concludes his swim in the mud with a parting shot at the neurosurgeon himself for what he must consider the "Thought Crime" of supporting Republicans:
    Michael Lemole, by the way, last year gave $1,000 to a political action committee that contributes only to Republicans.
    It will be interesting to see how long, if ever, it takes for at least the Palm Beach Post to apologize for running Jose Lambiet's odious column.

    Read more:
  8. Baba gounj

    Baba gounj pensioner

    Swept Under The Rug by MSM: Radical Leftist Slits Throat of Man He Thought Was GOP Gov. of Missouri…

    (American Thinker)- Successful propaganda is composed of equal parts deception and suppression, and the apparatchiks in the mainstream media are much better at the latter.
    They may have erred in pushing the Arizona assassination attempt beyond its ideological limits last week, but they succeeded brilliantly a few months earlier in suppressing news of a nearly lethal attempt by a genuine leftist.
    In September 2010 Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon was scheduled to speak at Penn Valley Community College in Kansas City.
    At some point, wearing black clothes and a bullet-proof vest, 22 year-old Casey Brezik bolted out of a classroom, knife in hand, and slashed the throat of a dean. As he would later admit, he confused the dean with Nixon.
    The story never left Kansas City. It is not hard to understand why. Knives lack the political sex appeal of guns, and even Keith Olbermann would have had a hard time turning Brezik into a Tea Partier.
  9. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Hmmmmm! Tip of the Iceberg.

    See Dwayne's World circa 1995' and see how gov't does a good job of regulation to keep those evil pirate Free Market types from dominating the marketplace. Take away ADM's State Privilege and profit subsidy and then just how much of a market force are they really? As for Microsoft, what happens to them if you end the state privilege of copyright and IP protection given at the expense of the taxpayer paid enforcement rather than at the expense of Microsoft's pockets?

    And just as an aside, let's really and seriously end welfare and cut off the true welfare queens in America! And I don't ignore something near and dear to our own hearts either. Gee, I wonder what would happen to the middle class and the small and even medium manufacturing base if cutting out these welfare queens did begin to happen? Wonder what would happen to small and medium family farms as opposed to what happened to them especially in the 1980's and 1990's? It was that evil, aweful estate tax that did it! Would Pop's Hardware and Drucker's store have survived Home Depot and Walmart had Pop's and Drucker been given the same state benefits from such things as eminent domain abuse, special roads and traffic treatments and even special tax breaks and consideration? If one didn't know better, seems to me that Pop's and Drucker were overrun but Bolshevik forces of State Capitalism.

    And there is an "Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand." since you brought up the iron fist.

    As for ADM's Dwayne Andreas, afterall he was being truthful and honest about those Bolshevik forces but then he does have our nickel (or at least a whole lot of our nickels) in his pocket and odds are we'll do nothing to take it back other than to utter the mantra, what's good for Corp. America is good for Americans! Wonder if the average Russian ever said, "What's good for the Bolsheviks is good for us Russians!" Gee, how'd that play out?

    And in a true free market, there is no state mandating a medium of exchange or legal tender laws so money as power becomes very complicated as no monopoly exists that allows the manipulation or the force. Don't like the terms, you just bolt to another form of medium of exchange between market actors and the power of manipulation vanishes like a fart in the wind. Wonder why someone would dare suggest "Ending the Fed?"

    I'll leave the horse hockey there and leave you this new name in more current lore to consider in the ADM tradition, Goldman Sachs!

    BTW: Think of the links as Footnotes unless you have something against footnotes? If you don't read them, this just meant you were never intended to read in the first place so it's all cool! It's a fate thing.

  10. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    When I turned on the TV this morning, it was on MSNBC and there was Chris Matthews. I HAD to turn the channel, but before I did, I heard him talking to 2 people about Michelle Bachman and how could she possibly make a run for the presidency. He said, how could she possibly do the job she was elected to do and also campaign etc.

    Couldn't the same be said of his leg-tingling Messiah or anybody who should run in 2012 ??
  11. curiousbrain

    curiousbrain Well-Known Member

    As a general rule, I don't have anything against reading, or footnotes. The reason I didn't read all the linked in articles was because (and this is just a personal observation based on past experiences which may or may not hold true) I find it difficult to argue with the aggregate thought on a particular topic on the internet. That is to say, why should anyone bother saying anything or performing original thought, when there is a veritable infinite pile of links to people (whose credentials vary widely) that can reinforce any possible point of view?

    I could post a thousand links that "prove" why I am right on an arbitrary topic, but in all actuality, all those links don't make me more right or more wrong.

    Another reason why I don't read all the links - because then I end up writing a doctoral thesis responding to the huge article that was linked, instead of continuing the discussion with the original poster.

    To the topic of agriculture in this country, it would be hard to make any case that that is a good example of a "proper" economic climate. However, I would make the case that ADM, as a corporation, is playing within the rules of the game, as it were; that is not to say that the way in which they exploit the rules is "right" or "wrong", but as a soulless entity whose legal obligation is to generate wealth, they sure do a good job of it.

    If the methods they employ to generate that wealth runs afoul of federal, international, or other legal rules, then they absolutely deserve to be held responsible and accountable for their actions - the question of whether they have been held accountable in ways that are commensurate with their crimes is debatable ad infinitum, I think. Luckily (or unluckily, depending on your perspective, I suppose), there is a legal system whose job it is to decide things like that.

    As for Microsoft and the link about Copyright and IP protection, I disagree with the link and, personally, happen to support the concept of IP. The case can be made that I am not seeing the big picture, or any other number of things, but as a person who occasionally participates in both open-source and closed-source software and engineering projects, there are advantages and disadvantages to both sides.

    Also, that link was filed under 'Opinion', and used phrases such as the following:
    Show me this empirical evidence. I'm not questioning the authors' credentials, and it is an opinion piece so there is a certain understanding that there is an implicit bias in there, but then it hardly helps as a third party reference for proving a point, either.

    Patenting the double-click is a bit specious, in my opinion, but if it is acceptable under the current judicial interpretation, then as much as I may think it smells funny, they should be allowed to do it. Hypothesizing that I am an inventor for a moment, what is the motivation for me as a scientist of some sort to innovate when I cannot guarantee monetary value for my invention? I love moral values and all that as much as the next person, but when I engage in work I do it for the money - maybe I'm the odd man out on that one, though.

    To the previous paragraph, I exclude high-energy particle physics due to the resources required - I don't think any breakthroughs in high-energy particle physics are going to come from a kid in a garage, is what I mean to say; I hope that is not too distasteful.

    As a larger point, I would make the initial argument that corporations are not national entities; they do business in a specific country because they make a complicated assessment and decide it would make them money - if they want to consider other intangible assets like consumer goodwill via human rights, or environmental friendliness, that is fine, too; but they certainly are not obligated to do so. As such, once they establish their presence, of course they are going to try and maximize their profit via political and judicial wrangling - it occurs to me that this is just a natural evolution of a corporate presence. How the institutions respond to their wrangling is then the issue, and a legitimate one, but the fact that corporations lobby and pursue more money via "better" treatment from regulators and government just seems to be a given, to me.

    To the true welfare queens and the link: Yes, ADM is bad because it gives money to politicians in legal and illegal ways, among other things.

    As a matter of opinion, if the giant players (like Home Depot or Walmart) disappeared entirely, in ten years you would have new corporations take their place. Equivalently, if one were to level the entire playing field and remove any benefits that any corporation is the recipient of, in ten years there would probably be new rules specific to a new set of corporations. Is that because government enjoys an uneven playing field and desires the lowest possible level of service for consumers, or is that an emergent phenomenon of capital-driven economies and politicians who need money for reelection campaigns?

    That being said, it does seem that eminent domain is an unreasonable tool for any corporation to use to facilitate expansion. However, a good point about the duality of consumer desire was raised in the CNN Money link you provided:

    The other link paints a direr picture for the specific area, which seems outrageous. However, I did a little investigation and I am led to believe (of which I could be wrong, of course, as I admit the investigation was far from thorough) that all the business owners wanted to sell, except for one who owned a single acre of land - which the Urban Renewal Authority said it did not want to condemn and give to Wal-Mart, however that that was an option, albeit a last one. Additionally, the development may not even have involved Wal-Mart, that they were just one of the companies looking to build on the area; also, that Alameda Square had been designated a "blighted, urban-renewal" district since 1991. Point being, it seems that it is not as cut-and-dry as the local municipality just kicking perfectly good businesses out regardless of their own desires.

    To be continued.
  12. curiousbrain

    curiousbrain Well-Known Member

    I read some of that link, then I looked up the author to distill the essence of his beliefs. Suffice to say, I disagree with his social and political outlook.

    I'd point out that the social and political structure of Russia (then, or now, for that matter) is in no way similar to what exists here. Does that automatically preclude similar things from happening? No; however, it does mean that one cannot simply draw lines and point to them, all the while saying "See?" To summarize, I reject the premise that Americans don't care that ADM, or any other person or entity, has our nickels; most of them, however, do not take the leap that therefore the whole system is pointless and we should immediately set about dismantling it.

    That doesn't sound like a free market, that sounds like bartering if I'm reading it correctly. No mandated medium of exchange - that makes an assumption of intrinsic value. I just realized, you are kind of advocating anarcho[ic]-capitalism.

    I regret the use of the phrase 'horse hockey', as it colored the tone; however, it was intended to be playful, not firm or derogatory.

    As to Goldman Sachs, yes, they are the latest enemy of the people. However, I defer to the mountain of text I've already typed, in which I argue that if it was not GS buying off politicians, it would be someone else. That does not make it right, and in response to it I advocate reform within the existing system of laws and what not, as opposed to the destruction of the existing one and the creation of a new system.

    Right on.
  13. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    Sounds like the "media" advances both claims and my guess would be that for financial gain they see no reason for those stories to die anytime soon.
  14. island1fox

    island1fox Well-Known Member

    This subject has been discussed before and I firmly agree that NO politician should be able to keep their present position and spend all of their time on the trail.
    What it really shows us is that they really do nothing at work, all the leg work and law writing comes from high paid aides. Most Senators have staffs of over 100 people that the taxpayers have to layout for.
    Chris Matthews makes me laugh He will praise Obama on the campaign trail when he was not doing his job of Chicago Senator, Call Palin a "quitter" for doing the right thing by resigning her position and now question how Bachman can hold her position and campaign.
    I do not mind a person taking a position one way or the other but the two face people I have no use for !!!
  15. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    And this is the reason it is pure folly for people to say, "Oh, we can't vote yet. We don't know what's in the bill." Yes they do. Their aides and advisors helped write it.
  16. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

  17. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    So NBC was going to be OK with Sandusky offending some more.....they didn't want to air the incriminating stuff. This is why the major networks suck at what they do. (NBC, CBS, ABC)
  18. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

  19. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Orwell Rolls in his Grave