Jump to content
RemedySpot.com

Re: so-called leftist media

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

>

> Suze, I'm a former journalist, 10 years at Bloomberg News.

That is interesting - it was Bloomberg that has been the only large media

organization that's been regularly reporting on the amount of money the Fed

has been creating since the " bailout " began. It is Bloomberg that first

reported the multi trillion in Federal Reserve notes being pumped out, up to

$23.7 trillion at last count.

Are they in any way left or right leaning, out of curiousity?

> Polls of journalists over the years have showed that there is a trend

> to the left in the personal politics of national reporters, to the

> right for local reporters, but it matters not a whit because the

> viewpoints that matter are those of the bosses that set the agenda and

> have final approval on stories, who themselves are overwhelmingly

> conservative or they're censored by conservative owners.

That may be so, but I wasn't referring to the newspaper owners in my

previous posts, but rather about those oligarchs at the very TOP of the

power structure in the nations of the West. THEY are the ones that

control/influence the newspaper owners and may in some cases (possibly many

cases) be the true owners of several popular mainstream media outlets.

Although it may be very difficult to trace true ownership that deep behind

the curtain.

And most

> journalists of my personal acquaintance are most interested in being

> fair and truthful and, in fact, censor themselves. You don't piss off

> your bosses by writing stories with a bent the bosses might fire or

> demote you for. And you don't get to write stories that call the whole

> system into question.

Right and that's a critical message that must be gotten out to the public.

>

>. For the most hard-

> hitting investigative reporting, you generally have to go to the

> shoestring Internet or newsletter operations (CounterPunch,

> Truthout.org, etc.) plus the above three. Salon.com has good writing

> too. I'm sure I've failed to point out a few.

> Jeanmarie

>

Have any of them reported on the $23.7 trillion that the banking cartel has

stolen from the American people?

If not, I wouldn't consider them to be " hard-hitting " .

Suze

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Bloomberg does a good job of maintaining relative neutrality,

but then again, the company's primary business is supplying realtime

financial information and analytical tools to the financial services

industry, so despite lots of first-rate investigative reporting about

the sins of the corporate world and Wall Street, there is no editorial

viewpoint that would question anything on a fundamental level. That

would be suicidal for the company. Still, I think it's a first-rate

news organization, but its reputation as a workhouse is well deserved!

I'm not sure which " oligarchs " you're referring to, it's kind of vague.

I haven't kept track of this $23.7 trillion figure so I couldn't say

who has reported it and who hasn't, but a Google search would be easy

enough to do to get an idea. What is your source on that, by the way?

Jeanmarie

On Aug 23, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Suze Fisher wrote:

> >

> > Suze, I'm a former journalist, 10 years at Bloomberg News.

>

> That is interesting - it was Bloomberg that has been the only large

> media

> organization that's been regularly reporting on the amount of money

> the Fed

> has been creating since the " bailout " began. It is Bloomberg that

> first

> reported the multi trillion in Federal Reserve notes being pumped

> out, up to

> $23.7 trillion at last count.

>

> Are they in any way left or right leaning, out of curiousity?

>

> > Polls of journalists over the years have showed that there is a

> trend

> > to the left in the personal politics of national reporters, to the

> > right for local reporters, but it matters not a whit because the

> > viewpoints that matter are those of the bosses that set the agenda

> and

> > have final approval on stories, who themselves are overwhelmingly

> > conservative or they're censored by conservative owners.

>

> That may be so, but I wasn't referring to the newspaper owners in my

> previous posts, but rather about those oligarchs at the very TOP of

> the

> power structure in the nations of the West. THEY are the ones that

> control/influence the newspaper owners and may in some cases

> (possibly many

> cases) be the true owners of several popular mainstream media outlets.

> Although it may be very difficult to trace true ownership that deep

> behind

> the curtain.

>

> And most

> > journalists of my personal acquaintance are most interested in being

> > fair and truthful and, in fact, censor themselves. You don't piss

> off

> > your bosses by writing stories with a bent the bosses might fire or

> > demote you for. And you don't get to write stories that call the

> whole

> > system into question.

>

> Right and that's a critical message that must be gotten out to the

> public.

>

> >

> >. For the most hard-

> > hitting investigative reporting, you generally have to go to the

> > shoestring Internet or newsletter operations (CounterPunch,

> > Truthout.org, etc.) plus the above three. Salon.com has good writing

> > too. I'm sure I've failed to point out a few.

> > Jeanmarie

> >

>

> Have any of them reported on the $23.7 trillion that the banking

> cartel has

> stolen from the American people?

>

> If not, I wouldn't consider them to be " hard-hitting " .

>

> Suze

>

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Headline news and CNN are my favorite.  Bill O'Reilly and others that use his

" no-spin " tactics.  You find out that most politicians and parties, especially

liberal and conservative, don't really have good quality solid plans when it

comes to any particular issue.  There are times though when different

individuals have something good to offer on certain issues.

> >

> > Suze, I'm a former journalist, 10 years at Bloomberg News.

>

> That is interesting - it was Bloomberg that has been the only large

> media

> organization that's been regularly reporting on the amount of money

> the Fed

> has been creating since the " bailout " began. It is Bloomberg that

> first

> reported the multi trillion in Federal Reserve notes being pumped

> out, up to

> $23.7 trillion at last count.

>

> Are they in any way left or right leaning, out of curiousity?

>

> > Polls of journalists over the years have showed that there is a

> trend

> > to the left in the personal politics of national reporters, to the

> > right for local reporters, but it matters not a whit because the

> > viewpoints that matter are those of the bosses that set the agenda

> and

> > have final approval on stories, who themselves are overwhelmingly

> > conservative or they're censored by conservative owners.

>

> That may be so, but I wasn't referring to the newspaper owners in my

> previous posts, but rather about those oligarchs at the very TOP of

> the

> power structure in the nations of the West. THEY are the ones that

> control/influence the newspaper owners and may in some cases

> (possibly many

> cases) be the true owners of several popular mainstream media outlets.

> Although it may be very difficult to trace true ownership that deep

> behind

> the curtain.

>

> And most

> > journalists of my personal acquaintance are most interested in being

> > fair and truthful and, in fact, censor themselves. You don't piss

> off

> > your bosses by writing stories with a bent the bosses might fire or

> > demote you for. And you don't get to write stories that call the

> whole

> > system into question.

>

> Right and that's a critical message that must be gotten out to the

> public.

>

> >

> >. For the most hard-

> > hitting investigative reporting, you generally have to go to the

> > shoestring Internet or newsletter operations (CounterPunch,

> > Truthout.org, etc.) plus the above three. Salon.com has good writing

> > too. I'm sure I've failed to point out a few.

> > Jeanmarie

> >

>

> Have any of them reported on the $23.7 trillion that the banking

> cartel has

> stolen from the American people?

>

> If not, I wouldn't consider them to be " hard-hitting " .

>

> Suze

>

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> I'm not sure which " oligarchs " you're referring to, it's kind of vague.

Decades ago they used to be referred to as the " Money Trust " or the

" Establishment " . Now they are often referred to as the " Banking Cartel " or

" Banking Cabal " . Most information points to banking dynasties such as

Rockefeller and Rothschild at the highest levels along with other banking

and industry magnates that are lesser known. Tier two below them includes

political figures such as Kissinger, Brzeziñski, former presidential advisor

House and many other political manipulators.

> I haven't kept track of this $23.7 trillion figure so I couldn't say

> who has reported it and who hasn't, but a Google search would be easy

> enough to do to get an idea. What is your source on that, by the way?

Originally who reported on the growing number over several

months. I followed the story to the source from the beginning - Bloomberg.

But it started out, as I mentioned, several months ago with Bloomberg

reporting the Fed had created 13 trillion. Then it went up to something like

17 trillion. Then it just kept going up. I just googled now and it looks

like several other news outlets are finally reporting it as well. Here's one

example:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25164.html

Bailouts could cost U.S. $23 trillion

" A series of bailouts, bank rescues and other economic lifelines could end

up costing the federal government as much as $23 trillion, the U.S.

government's watchdog over the effort says - a staggering amount that is

nearly double the nation's entire economic output for a year.

If the feds end up spending that amount, it could be more than the federal

government has spent on any single effort in American history. "

<snip>

" In fact, $23 trillion is more than the total cost of all the wars the

United States has ever fought, put together. World War II, for example, cost

$4.1 trillion in 2008 dollars, according to the Congressional Research

Service.

Even the Moon landings and the New Deal didn't come close to $23 trillion:

the Moon shot in 1969 cost an estimated $237 billion in current dollars, and

the entire Depression-era Roosevelt relief program came in at $500 billion,

according to Jim Bianco of Bianco Research. "

Suze

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sweden is a successful oligarchy.  Singapore is a well off citystate that makes

a lot of money.  Not sure what type of government they are...

Both nations make a lot of money, and the other big similarty they have, they

are very small peices of land.  It's far easier to be efficient with a small

well ran piece of land.

I think we should build a fourth branch of the government that would be called

the " financial branch " .  It would have researchers and decision makers that

work with various business and mayors in order to improve the economy of this

country.  They would even work with other countries in order to make our

financial relations more efficient.  Our central goverment should be ran more

like a business where if any of the individuals can't pick up the slack and

follow the standards aren't followed they get fired and replaced.  We should

give the mayors and governers of each state more options and take in more input

in order to make each state more efficient.  The financial branch should also

recruit individuals such as G. and Trump to help with it

too.  The financial branch would also be constantly working with the richest

people of this nation such as Bill Gates, The Oil Industry, etc. and show them

oppurtunities where they can

invest into new industries of the future.  With this combined knowledge it

would be much easier for our country to move forward and fix it's financial

woes.  Because all the rich people are joined together in one goal they will be

far more efficient putting together their plans, not to mention gaining massive

government help.

We need to dissolve potlitical parties and instead have pure economist

statesman.  We would then need to rework the system and remove corruption. 

It's time our country became ethical and wholesome again.  We're treading in a

dangerous direction, and it may lead to the collapse of the free system.

This shouldn't hurt small businesses either.  They will be able get in touch

with the financial branch and find out what funding programs are truly

available.  Hopefully this will help us remove our debt, improve our relations

with other countries, and afford college for everybody.

Because the big industries are so aware of how to make money in new industries,

they no longer need to hold on to old technology such as oil and oil pulling. 

This would ultimately lead to a cleaner environment.

Does that sound radical?

Holt

From: Suze Fisher <suzefisher@...>

Subject: RE: so-called leftist media

Date: Sunday, August 23, 2009, 8:15 PM

> I'm not sure which " oligarchs " you're referring to, it's kind of vague.

Decades ago they used to be referred to as the " Money Trust " or the

" Establishment " . Now they are often referred to as the " Banking Cartel " or

" Banking Cabal " . Most information points to banking dynasties such as

Rockefeller and Rothschild at the highest levels along with other banking

and industry magnates that are lesser known. Tier two below them includes

political figures such as Kissinger, Brzeziński, former presidential advisor

House and many other political manipulators.

> I haven't kept track of this $23.7 trillion figure so I couldn't say

> who has reported it and  who hasn't, but a Google search would be easy

> enough to do to get an idea. What is your source on that, by the way?

Originally who reported on the growing number over several

months. I followed the story to the source from the beginning - Bloomberg.

But it started out, as I mentioned, several months ago with Bloomberg

reporting the Fed had created 13 trillion. Then it went up to something like

17 trillion. Then it just kept going up. I just googled now and it looks

like several other news outlets are finally reporting it as well. Here's one

example:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25164.html

Bailouts could cost U.S. $23 trillion

" A series of bailouts, bank rescues and other economic lifelines could end

up costing the federal government as much as $23 trillion, the U.S.

government's watchdog over the effort says - a staggering amount that is

nearly double the nation's entire economic output for a year.

If the feds end up spending that amount, it could be more than the federal

government has spent on any single effort in American history. "

<snip>

" In fact, $23 trillion is more than the total cost of all the wars the

United States has ever fought, put together. World War II, for example, cost

$4.1 trillion in 2008 dollars, according to the Congressional Research

Service.

Even the Moon landings and the New Deal didn't come close to $23 trillion:

the Moon shot in 1969 cost an estimated $237 billion in current dollars, and

the entire Depression-era Roosevelt relief program came in at $500 billion,

according to Jim Bianco of Bianco Research. "

Suze

------------------------------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the question of whether non-corporate left-wing new sources have covered the

bank bailout cost, the World Socialist Web Site, a good source of news even if

you don't favor their Trotskyite politics, has been covering the bailout, which

they call " a crime of historic proportions. "

" The report’s estimate of the bailout’s total cost, $23 trillion, is in

itself mind-boggling. It amounts to 1.7 times the total Gross Domestic Product

of the whole United States. In other words, the product of more than a year’s

labor for all American workers is being directly transferred to the banks. To

put this figure in perspective, the government’s total outlay for

discretionary spending, which includes education, food and nutrition programs

and housing and urban development, is less than a trillion a year.

" This massive transfer of wealth entails the immiseration and impoverishment of

the great majority of society. The bank bailout program is widely reviled, and

the bankers who benefited are seen as no better than criminals. All of this has

explosive implications. It is in tacit recognition of this fact, and in desire

to make the Treasury’s theiving less blatant, that the document warns that the

Treasury’s actions “could put in jeopardy the fragile trust the American

people have in TARP and, by extension, their Government.â€

" The bank bailout was designed from the start to enrich the financial elite at

the expense of everyone else while being presented as relief for the economic

crisis . The program’s favoritism, conflicts of interest, and massive

loopholes are not a rough patch in an otherwise sound program, but are essential

to its very aim. The whole thing is a crime of historic proportions. "

See http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/tarp-j22.shtml

>

> > I'm not sure which " oligarchs " you're referring to, it's kind of vague.

>

> Decades ago they used to be referred to as the " Money Trust " or the

> " Establishment " . Now they are often referred to as the " Banking Cartel " or

> " Banking Cabal " . Most information points to banking dynasties such as

> Rockefeller and Rothschild at the highest levels along with other banking

> and industry magnates that are lesser known. Tier two below them includes

> political figures such as Kissinger, Brzezi�ski, former presidential advisor

> House and many other political manipulators.

>

>

> > I haven't kept track of this $23.7 trillion figure so I couldn't say

> > who has reported it and who hasn't, but a Google search would be easy

> > enough to do to get an idea. What is your source on that, by the way?

>

> Originally who reported on the growing number over several

> months. I followed the story to the source from the beginning - Bloomberg.

> But it started out, as I mentioned, several months ago with Bloomberg

> reporting the Fed had created 13 trillion. Then it went up to something like

> 17 trillion. Then it just kept going up. I just googled now and it looks

> like several other news outlets are finally reporting it as well. Here's one

> example:

>

> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25164.html

> Bailouts could cost U.S. $23 trillion

>

> " A series of bailouts, bank rescues and other economic lifelines could end

> up costing the federal government as much as $23 trillion, the U.S.

> government's watchdog over the effort says - a staggering amount that is

> nearly double the nation's entire economic output for a year.

>

> If the feds end up spending that amount, it could be more than the federal

> government has spent on any single effort in American history. "

>

> <snip>

>

> " In fact, $23 trillion is more than the total cost of all the wars the

> United States has ever fought, put together. World War II, for example, cost

> $4.1 trillion in 2008 dollars, according to the Congressional Research

> Service.

>

> Even the Moon landings and the New Deal didn't come close to $23 trillion:

> the Moon shot in 1969 cost an estimated $237 billion in current dollars, and

> the entire Depression-era Roosevelt relief program came in at $500 billion,

> according to Jim Bianco of Bianco Research. "

>

> Suze

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>

>The financial branch should also recruit individuals such as >G.

and Trump to help with it too. 

Seriously? Trump? The guy's a serious tool, though he certainly knows

about how to mismanage things and then be bailed out by the banks. Would fit

right in with the other criminals.

>

> We need to dissolve potlitical parties and instead have pure >economist

statesman.

Thank you, Plato, but I don't think most people, right or left, on this list or

in this country want to live in a technocratic autocracy, even if that is the

dream of our ruling-class elites for the better part of a century now.

>

> Does that sound radical?

>

> Holt

Wasn't the word I'd use...

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for this!

We have another wonderful media black out of the really important events… but

you can bet CBS nightly news is going to rehash ’s drug

addictions/death or whatever it was!

Dawn

From: [mailto: ]

On Behalf Of lynchwt

Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 12:31 PM

Subject: Re: so-called leftist media

On the question of whether non-corporate left-wing new sources have covered the

bank bailout cost, the World Socialist Web Site, a good source of news even if

you don't favor their Trotskyite politics, has been covering the bailout, which

they call " a crime of historic proportions. "

" The report’s estimate of the bailout’s total cost, $23 trillion,

is in itself mind-boggling. It amounts to 1.7 times the total Gross Domestic

Product of the whole United States. In other words, the product of more than a

year’s labor for all American workers is being directly transferred to

the banks. To put this figure in perspective, the government’s total

outlay for discretionary spending, which includes education, food and nutrition

programs and housing and urban development, is less than a trillion a year.

" This massive transfer of wealth entails the immiseration and impoverishment of

the great majority of society. The bank bailout program is widely reviled, and

the bankers who benefited are seen as no better than criminals. All of this has

explosive implications. It is in tacit recognition of this fact, and in desire

to make the Treasury’s theiving less blatant, that the document warns

that the Treasury’s actions “could put in jeopardy the fragile

trust the American people have in TARP and, by extension, their

Government.â€Â

" The bank bailout was designed from the start to enrich the financial elite at

the expense of everyone else while being presented as relief for the economic

crisis . The program’s favoritism, conflicts of interest, and massive

loopholes are not a rough patch in an otherwise sound program, but are essential

to its very aim. The whole thing is a crime of historic proportions. "

See http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/tarp-j22.shtml

--- In

<mailto: %40> , " Suze Fisher " <suzefisher@...>

wrote:

>

> > I'm not sure which " oligarchs " you're referring to, it's kind of vague.

>

> Decades ago they used to be referred to as the " Money Trust " or the

> " Establishment " . Now they are often referred to as the " Banking Cartel " or

> " Banking Cabal " . Most information points to banking dynasties such as

> Rockefeller and Rothschild at the highest levels along with other banking

> and industry magnates that are lesser known. Tier two below them includes

> political figures such as Kissinger, Brzezi�ski, former presidential

advisor

> House and many other political manipulators.

>

>

> > I haven't kept track of this $23.7 trillion figure so I couldn't say

> > who has reported it and who hasn't, but a Google search would be easy

> > enough to do to get an idea. What is your source on that, by the way?

>

> Originally who reported on the growing number over several

> months. I followed the story to the source from the beginning - Bloomberg.

> But it started out, as I mentioned, several months ago with Bloomberg

> reporting the Fed had created 13 trillion. Then it went up to something like

> 17 trillion. Then it just kept going up. I just googled now and it looks

> like several other news outlets are finally reporting it as well. Here's one

> example:

>

> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25164.html

> Bailouts could cost U.S. $23 trillion

>

> " A series of bailouts, bank rescues and other economic lifelines could end

> up costing the federal government as much as $23 trillion, the U.S.

> government's watchdog over the effort says - a staggering amount that is

> nearly double the nation's entire economic output for a year.

>

> If the feds end up spending that amount, it could be more than the federal

> government has spent on any single effort in American history. "

>

> <snip>

>

> " In fact, $23 trillion is more than the total cost of all the wars the

> United States has ever fought, put together. World War II, for example, cost

> $4.1 trillion in 2008 dollars, according to the Congressional Research

> Service.

>

> Even the Moon landings and the New Deal didn't come close to $23 trillion:

> the Moon shot in 1969 cost an estimated $237 billion in current dollars, and

> the entire Depression-era Roosevelt relief program came in at $500 billion,

> according to Jim Bianco of Bianco Research. "

>

> Suze

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second the motion on Trump... he's the master of bullshitting,

not finance. He goes bankrupt every time he has a divorce pending.

He's all about ego, marketing, BS.

Jeanmarie

On Aug 24, 2009, at 10:39 AM, lynchwt wrote:

> >The financial branch should also recruit individuals such as

> >G. and Trump to help with it too.Â

>

> Seriously? Trump? The guy's a serious tool, though he

> certainly knows about how to mismanage things and then be bailed out

> by the banks. Would fit right in with the other criminals.

>

> >

> > We need to dissolve potlitical parties and instead have pure

> >economist statesman.

>

> Thank you, Plato, but I don't think most people, right or left, on

> this list or in this country want to live in a technocratic

> autocracy, even if that is the dream of our ruling-class elites for

> the better part of a century now.

> _,___

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was either for that idea or unadulterated naked anarchy.  I would rather go

around beheading people with the samurai sword I would eventually steal from

Arden Fair Mall if total chaos did ever take dominance in our society.

That may very well be a possible reality when Osama Binladen puts an embargo on

American soil in the near future.  That is after he conquers the Eastern

Hemisphere with his chemical warfare and forces us to convert to the nation of

Islam.  Then come the barcodes on our hands and foreheads, the beheadings, and

the concentration camps... very bleak future.

While Trump did lose it all he got it all back.  He's a financial

genius.  He's got credit even when he's got no money.  He can manifest 1 dollar

into 1 million dollars.  That's an act of Jesus!!!

Hey now, I think it's a good idea.  This way we dissolve classes and so their

are no rich and poor.  How?  Deflation in money as the value of all items has

stabilized due to reorganization.  We would become somewhat comparable to the

auervedic(sp?) culture in that regard.  A culture where value is based on merits

rather than on financial success.

> >The financial branch should also recruit individuals such as

> >G. and Trump to help with it too.Â

>

> Seriously? Trump? The guy's a serious tool, though he

> certainly knows about how to mismanage things and then be bailed out

> by the banks. Would fit right in with the other criminals.

>

> >

> > We need to dissolve potlitical parties and instead have pure

> >economist statesman.

>

> Thank you, Plato, but I don't think most people, right or left, on

> this list or in this country want to live in a technocratic

> autocracy, even if that is the dream of our ruling-class elites for

> the better part of a century now.

> _,___

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...