Ever watch a news account and find yourself just nodding over and over in agreement? Here is Communications Consultant for the New Organizing Institute Joel Silberman on RT News saying what is NEVER said on American TV: the media doesn't want you informed.
By all reasonable measures, the stimulus that the Obama administration put together in the face of the economic meltdown engineered by the Bush administration and Republican policies worked. It did. Now, one can argue that it could have been more or pushed further progressive policies, as Krugman has. But as Jon Perr has written, it has been a success.
So where's the disconnect? As Joel says, it's the media. And as this truthout article from last year points out (h/t David A), it's done purposefully in the name of ratings:
To begin with, talk shows[..] are popular and powerful because they appeal to a segment of the population that feels disenfranchised and even victimized by the media. These people believe the media are predominantly staffed by and consistently reflect the views of social liberals. This view is by now so long-held and deep-rooted, it has evolved into part of virtually every conservative's DNA.
To succeed, a talk show host must perpetuate the notion that his or her listeners are victims, and the host is the vehicle by which they can become empowered. The host frames virtually every issue in us-versus-them terms. There has to be a bad guy against whom the host will emphatically defend those loyal listeners.
This enemy can be a politician - either a Democratic officeholder or, in rare cases where no Democrat is convenient to blame, it can be a "RINO" (a "Republican In Name Only," who is deemed not conservative enough). It can be the cold, cruel government bureaucracy. More often than not, however, the enemy is the "mainstream media" - local or national, print or broadcast.
can only prosper by reporting on conflict. It is in their interest to play a role in creating artificial conflict that they can then report on.
Maybe the media needs to rethink its programming and broadcast news only at six, noon, six and ten, with break-ins of "regularly-scheduled programs" when important news arises.
They need to be rated on things other than the news, like excellent discussions, entertainment, science programs, etc.
But that won't happen without government action, oversight, and a strong hand when the corporate media supports those who lie.
"Maybe the media needs to rethink its programming and broadcast news only at six, noon, six and ten, with break-ins of "regularly-scheduled programs" when important news arises."
Like they'll ever leave the MISSING PRETTY WHITE GIRL 24 hour news cycle.
--by viewing Public Television newscasts (World Focus, BBC-News, Deusche Welle, etc.) where you don't have to suffer through the likes of a Chuck Todd telling Chris Matthews after the Summit: "The Republicans came TEN TIMES MORE PREPARED than the Democrats," because the Democrats didn't smack-down the Republicans on some shiny-thing issue to which Mr. Todd called our attention.
Mr. Todd and others like him depend upon the ancient Greek invention of theatre and it's requisite "conflict" to stoke emotions, thus attract debate (and viewership), thus guaranteeing his job security.
The tragic flaw in Mr. Tood's and other's (in my opinion) philosophy is the only insurance such cynically motivated, disengenuous "reporting" and/or "commentating" ultimately holds is that they'll insure themselves of ultimately being out of a job.
Garbage in, Garbage out.
Multiple 24 hour channels spewing unverifiable, non-contextual data from people who failed out of modeling school.
What do you expect?
to explain why the media isn't far left and the big lies is hardly sufficient. Hopefully we can get more of this type of information.
Free speech be damned, there's so much BS out there. We should start holding Media accountable for lying. Fines and penalties and jail time. Liberal media my ass. If we had liberal media we would never have gone into Iraq.
If someone has a platform of millions of listeners and continually spews BS they should be held accountable.
Americans are lazy, uneducated fools who'd much rather accept bullshit lies than do the necessary ground work to find out the truth.
I have educated lawyers reciting right wing talking points to me all the time.
1)The Stimulus failed.
2)Canadian health care is horrible.
3)Obama no different than Bush.
4)Olbermann = Limbaugh, Beck.
I am a Canadian, and I don't understand where anyone gets the idea that our health care is horrible... I use OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan) which is totally free to me (taxes not withstanding) and I have never had any sort of bureaucrat telling me what sort of care I can get... I have a family doctor that is paid for in full, I can use the services of any hospital in Ontario without charge (and any hospital in other provinces I am reimbursed for), and I'm still alive and kicking after 31 years (87 years for my grandmother, and her husband lived to 92...).
It blows my mind when anyone says that the US health care is superior to ours, it's simply a bald-faced lie.
"I could give a flying crap about the political process.... We're an entertainment company."
- Glenn Beck - Forbes interview; April 26, 2010
--with no health care? I grew up in Chicago, went to college in the U.K. In Chicago I had a colonoscopy in 1995. No insurance. The fee: $1,600.00. In 2002 I had another colonoscopy, this time in London. The cost was cab fare.
an interesting movie last night called "This Revolution." It's goes over how the media is more interested in ratings than news. The time and location was 2004 in NY during the republican national convention.
The old axiom is, "If if bleeds, it leads." Sensationalism almost always works in favor of the emotional response, rather than critical thinking. Another thing working against critical thinking in the media is the fact that news organizations are making deep cuts in staff and budget. There are fewer filters through which a piece of bullshit must pass before it gets on the air or on the page.
But the biggest problem, IMO, is the barrier of integrity that used to stand between corporate intrests and their news divisions. While this barrier always had many holes, now it is nearly non-existent. "News" organizations now exist solely as mouthpieces for their advertisers and corporate owners. Look how crappy 60 Minutes has gotten in recent years.
I wouldn't make the universal observation you do, but there are certainly lots of queer minded people wandering around.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Orwell Rolls In His Grave here
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
if google video weren't such a blurry, god-awful mess.
You probably won't enjoy the video because it is not about the images. It is about the political process. Reduce the size of the window and listen to the audio.
It is chilling.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
I just watch the "news"...
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
Until we have a Full Disclosure Fairness Doctrine again, we will never be able to defeat the lying corporate fascists who own the MSM. The American people, are just not smart enough to believe thier own lying eyes.
Rush Limbaugh is what a smart person thinks a stupid bigot sounds like.
If the news actually did news, they'd have to point out when politicians (of any political affiliation) are lying or being dishonest. If they did that, the politician might cut off "access" which, in the for profit newstainment industry, is very important. So, they do a "he said, she said" kind of debate and present it as news.
The "liberal media" should just accept the mantle and go full force on actually being old school journalists. They're seriously hurting this country by not doing so.
was a CNN political analyst at CPAC telling the audience that they have Fox news on their side. It might have been at the teaparty convention but it happened. Can you think of any democratic function that has gotten the media attention that those two gatherings of idiots have?
what do we hear from the MSM on the summit? ..........................................
Crickets
Hardly any of them are talking about how bad the republicans performed.
the most
trustedcorporate name in news."Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
--I said it before, but when he told Chris Matthews in the after-summit coverage that "The Republican's came TEN times more prepared than the Democrats," my jaw literally dropped, yet Mr. Matthews' jaw remained wide shut.
There were about 600 people at the Tea Party event where Sarah Palin spoke, it got wall to wall coverage in the media.
A few weeks earlier there were large demonstrations in Chicago were the American Bankers Association were meeting. Those demos got almost no coverage.
A better example might be the 10 million people who demonstrated against the inception of the Iraq War, around the world and in the US, which again received minimal coverage in comparison to the "tea party" events, attended by a relative handful of white folk.
What did Bush call the demonstrators? A focus group? As in I won't have my policies dictated by focus groups?
Such massive coverage for so few people.
An agenda? Nah...
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
the file name i'm putting this story under.
In the face of such blatant hubris and stupidity--which is the least pejorative description of the media I can type herein--ya just gotta laugh.
Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television:
1] while television may seem useful, interesting, and worthwhile, at the same time it further boxes people into a physical and mental condition appropriate for the emergence of autocratic control.
2] concerns the emergence of the controllers. That television would be used and expanded by the present powers-that-be was inevitable, and should have been predictable at the outset. The technology permits of no other controllers.
3] concerns the effects of television upon individual human bodies and minds, effects which fit the purposes of the people who control the medium.
4] demonstrates that television has no democratic potential. The technology itself places absolute limits on what may pass through it. The medium, in effect, chooses its own content from a very narrow field of possibilities. The effect is to drastically confine all human understanding within a rigid channel. What binds the four arguments together is that they deal with aspects of television that are not reformable.
http://www.amazon.com/Arguments-Elimination-T...
when Obama comes for our televisions.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Rachel Maddow does not own a television. (right wingers, her name is pronounced as in "shadow" not as in Dow Chemical. Also too as well, "Iraq" is pronounced "Ear-ROCK," not "Eye-RACK. You don't say Eye-talian, or maybe you do. Also too again iff possible, you may trill the r in "Ear-ROCK slightly, but thankfully for you not as strongly as that of a Mexican trilled r.)
...was (actually) a "Bush Paulson idea" that Obama voted for.
(talk about misinformation!)
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
Obama had multiple choices and chose "Financial Terrorism": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sq5j0ba034M
You mean TARP (October 2008 bailout).
The ARRA (January 2009 stimulus) included the Tax Code Section 382 multi hundred billion dollar tax giveaway to the Banksters. This no one talks about, not the the Democrats or the Republicans. The greatest stealth heist in history.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
The US media has been lying to its audience ever since I can remember. For years, as I recall, the media were cheerleaders for the Vietnam war. Critics of that war were either ignored or, as in the case of people like Jane Fonda, stigmatized as traitors.
In the run up to the Iraq war, again, critics were few and far between, and again, they were also either ignored, or like Scott Ridder, stigmatized as deviants.
If you watch the TV news today, you will find that the commentators and so called analysts who served up the Bush regime's BS about Iraq and its WMDs, and what a threat they were to the US, still have jobs as talking heads, whereas those few who were brave enough to question those lies, well their careers in broadcasting didn't work out as well.
You mean like Newt Gingrich saying that Richard Reid, AKA The Shoe Bomber, was an American Citizen? And no one correcting him? You mean that kind of misinformation? Oh, then I'm with you on that 100%, Buckwheat.
on the very program on which Mr. Gingrich made the statement. Just like yours was here. But note the poster did not correct you, a commenter did to. Does that put C&L in the misinformation category?
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
--and post a link. I recall to the best of my recollection if I'm not misremembering that there was no such within-a-few-minutes correction. Perhaps I didn't wait that extra minute, the one that you did. Please where's the link?
Went over to RT and poked around. Not bad. Bookmarked it. Thanks C&L.
This is the main reason that I don't have much hope for our country , is probably the biggest problem this country has . The MSM and Fox propaganda , no wonder at all that so many Americans are seemingly so ignorant and " dumb " . Not so many years ago these Repugs ( in particular ) could not have gotten away with what they routinely do now , there's just no way , the media would have called them out immediately and they'd been disgraced and rejected . The MSM used to be our protector and watch dog believe it or not , seems like a life time ago now . Integrity , honor , duty ... all nonsense these days , greed is where it's at !
All gloss, no conflict is what it takes for dumb 'Merkans to stomach their "news".
Not many want to go back to the days of Cronkite, etc, even with the faults of those days.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or ARRA of January 2009 is generally what is meant by the term Stimulus. This should always be differentiated from the the Troubled Asset Relief Program or TARP of October 2008, although it did include a related component.
The ARRA is a complicated program and attempting to make a simplistic assessment of whether it has succeeded or failed without noting what it was supposed to do is asking the wrong question.
The number of $767 billion is often repeated. That does not include the stealth $200 billion plus Section 382 tax giveaway to the Banks. It breaks down into 2/3 spending and 1/3 tax cuts.
It has had a positive effect but it was too small for the size of the problem.
The Council of Economic Advisors has made two reports so far:
Sept 10, 2009 here
Jan 13, 2010 here
-----
The country has lost over $8 trillion in property valuation and $6 trillion in stock market equity, some of which has been regained.
The impact of the recession is greatest for low income people who have upwards of 30% unemployment which is a great depression level.
The upper income people still have full employment, there is no recession for them.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
If you want to show how stupid you are say the words: liberal media.
Say what you will about the idiots of the GOP they were able to lie over and over without shame. Not because they should not have been, ther are tons of things they should be ashamed of, they just don't have the capability. I guess that is because they don't have the intelligence or the morals to feel shame.
republicanism/conservatism is a menatl illness and it has almost killed America.
All it did was make the debt problem worse, the US economically has simply climbed it's way to a higher cliff to fall off when the hit wears off.
You want to say it worked?
It worked like a hit of crack cocaine does, wait for the effects to wear off and the withdrawals to start.
*sigh* the people who believe the lie that the stimulus worked are in for a brutal lesson in the next few years. This economic downturn is just getting started.
How do I know? How am I so sure? Because unlike the news, numbers don't lie.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
Dumbass!
republicanism/conservatism is a mental illness and it has almost killed America.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
Do the math for yourself here
http://crooksandliars.com/comment/permalink/1...
[Sorry site monitor for the double post, my bad]
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
Oooooooooh, the big scawy truth! Watch out, VegasRage, you're sure to get a backlash for daring to 1) denigrate the current administration's feeble attempt(s) to staunch the torrential, aortal bleedout of our economy, and 2) highlight the bleak reality of our global economy's continued disintegration.
Not just a big SCAWY truth, a butt ugly one...
But when the numbers extremely don't make sense it's kind of hard to not say so.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
Thank you Joel for stating the facts about the state of media today. Liberals and Progressives live in the real world where we expect people to actually think through the problems of the nation and then react accordingly. Democratic leadership lives in a world where Eisenhower Republicans still exist, and that's just not the case. Today's Republican could give a damn about the working and middle class, less more the exremely poor, of which the number grows daily. The media is about eyeballs today. Their sole interest is in gaining viewers, so salaciousness and hype is what they present on their 24 hour news shows. For example, after the so-called health care summit, what was the first thing Chris Matthews talked about, Obama's use of the Senators and Representatives first name. He was more concerned with his perception that Obama disrespected the congress people by calling them by their first name. Really, seven hours of mostly fluff and talking points, but yes some policy discussion, and the first thing out of Matthews mouth was style.
The media treats news likes sports. They always put things in a who won context, and hardly ever discuss substance. Mr. Silberman is correct in talking about how the right got it years ago, and developed media institutions to go out and create an alternate reality. The right realized a sizeable segment of the American public is just not that smart, and formed institutions to target that population to be agitators and dissenters, to vote against their own interest. Why do you think most Fox viewers are consistently the most uninformed people? Until the left wakes up, and realizes there's a real war going on for the soul of America, they will subsist in this world that doesn't exist anymore. They are constantly caught off guard when Republicans take control of the message and distort it. Obama and the congressional leadership continues this bipartisan dance on legislative priorities with a conservative/republican party that is totally divorced from reality, save two or three people. They seem to not understand that Republicans are interested in power for power's sake only. They have no interest in helping the average Joe. If I hear someone ask the question one more time, why these people constantly lie about or distort policies, I'm going to shoot somebody. That is what they do, that is how they win. When Democrats have a level media playing field, they win, period. Because facts still matter. But when the media plays its role of gaining eyeballs only, the Democrats lose, because it allows the Republicans to confuse the issues and fool the public.
it's done purposefully in the name of ratings:
what the quote points out is that conservative blatherers blame the media as a boogie man of the angry and disenfranchised in order to get ratings. That is true, but it is not why the corporate media does in fact serve as a propaganda arm of the republican/conservative lunacy. The media does it not for ratings, but in fact as their propaganda role for the plutocracy - to disinforma and confuse the electorate, to hide the truth in a smoke screen of confusing lies and unreality.
The corporate media chieftains are in fact the most traitorous of Americans for they have intentionally undermined American democracy, intentionally keeping the electorate from the truth and facts, while promoting and spinning republican/conservative lies in servitude to the plutocracy. They have facilitated the massive class warfare the plutocrats have waged on the middle class, working class, and poor since reagan to rob and plunder the nation's wealth and the hard labor of the workers for their psychotic insane greed.
The corporate media is the army of the rich who have failed AMerica so massively for decades.
My question after listening to this is: What are WE going to do about it? The RW is dangerous, but they are much better organized and funded. How can we fight this?
I was so excited in the early part of the decade with the rise of the left wing blogosphere, and there have been some important victories over the last ten years. But I still feel we are losing ground overall. We continue with our perpetual wars, our domestic surveillance, the stripping of our rights, and the massive shift of wealth.
I am tired of sitting here typing. We need to take action to turn this mess around. But first we need two things. Money and numbers. I know both exist. But I feel so powerless to get it organized. Yes I send money (because I'm one of the few who can still afford it) and letters. I make phone calls. I send faxes. But there must be a next level for us to step up to. Howard Zinn stated that it starts from the bottom up. We need to find a way to get massive numbers of people together, whether it's in the streets or in some venue, to make our presence known. We need to organize behind one party line (platform) that we ALL agree upon and advocate.
I think one of the biggest obstacles to this is our diversity of opinions. I am not in favor of pushing an agenda on anyone who does not agree with my particular POV's. But I do believe that we need to compromise within our own ranks in order to be unified. There needs to be a progressivew platform that includes such things as, but not limited to:
progressive taxation, a woman's indisputable and unequivocal right to choose what to do with her body, a more strict separation of church and state, increased regulation and reclassification of the corporate entity, reorganization of our national defense priorities and most importantly the reform of our election process.
As Stevie Ray Vaughn once sang, "Times tickin' away".
The people of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." J.K. Galbraith
No sh*t Sherlock Holmes!
If it's such a "DUH" for you Einstein, why hasn't it happened?
The people of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." J.K. Galbraith
"...it's done purposefully in the name of ratings"
I'll go further than that. It's done purposefully in order to help Republicans win elections over Democrats.
I've been watching this happen since Nixon's first presidential election campaign. It is extremely rare to catch mainstream media misinforming in ways that promote favorite Democratic campaign talkikng points during election seasons. It is common to find them promoting favorte Republican ones instead.
And why wouldn't they want to slant it that way? After all, mainstream media is in the business of attracting eyes and ears with bad news. Bad news sells. Good news sits on the shelf. And history shows us that there is no better way to ensure bad news over good for America and the rest of the world than to have the U.S. government controlled predominantly by Republicans.
Which, in a less direct manner, does mean they do it "in the name of ratings", but not as simply as the expert has offered it.
This is what happens when all of the Corporate Media is owned by
Five Corporations. That number is expected to Shrink to about Three
and Yes FOX.will be one of them. Here is a Great link that illustrates
the history of the National Media Fraud.
I subscribe to the Russia Today channel on YouTube - along with AP, APF, Reuters, alJazerra, FireDogLake, MoxNewsDotCom, and a host of movie channels.
Russia Today's commentary and analysis are somewhat uneven, occasionally amateurish, occasionally pretty radical (madsen, tarpley, alex jones) but frequently they cover stories the US MSM totally ignores, or reports onesidedly. And frequently they have great interviews (Thom Hartmann, Lawrence Wilkerson).
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
And how far our media has become like their old...
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
But not ever hearing about it before caused me to do a bit of research and I have to say:
-Although I agree wholeheartedly with what Silberman says here using a Russian media outlet lends some discredit to the whole piece. I think that's obvious. Who in their right mind is really going to take this opinion piece for fact knowing full well that it was broadcast on "Russia Today".
Sorry. Silberman needs to take this to a more "reputable" outlet. I know, I know. Believe me, I know.
He could have just said that Reslug liars are brainless, ignorant, racist dickheads and be done with it.
There used to be laws about how much media one person or corporation could own . I remember when the big shots in the MSM were outsiders , they weren't invited in to the political cocktail parties , dinners , , fund raisers and events , it was an exclusive club , the politicians and media /news people were not on friendly terms . Now they enable each other and are holding hands if not in bed together , the best of friends .
Here are the factors involved:
- Immediacy. The drive is to be the first on the scene, first on the air with pictures.
- Exclusivity. The drive is to have stuff no one else does.
- In-house "Brand". It's a repeating cycle. Managers come up with half-baked 'mission statements' that are supposed to make our product better, when it's really just a fresh coat of paint over the same old thing. (For example, we had a news director in the 90's who insisted on a graphic package that played off the 'smart bomb' footage from the Gulf War ... that went away and everyone sighed with releief. But now with the advent of Google Earth, it's back - and none of the managers NOW are from back then, so they think it's all new and spiffy.)
Branding now includes the internet, so don't think you're getting the news just by surfing the net - pay attention to your sources. You'll find the same syndicated video, the same wire copy. And while 'citizen journalism' via YouTube is appealing, we've already seen the dark side here: dipsticks like James O'Keefe, an irresponsible schmuck bankrolled by a conservative thug like Breitbart. The fact that they broke every rule in the book regarding journalistic ethics has gone unremarked upon, and they're still being treated as if they were valid sources.
- The illusion of bias. You can thank Rush Limbaugh and Bernie Goldstein for this one. They have, and continue to sell the public on the myth that if reality isn't what you think it should be, then it's biased. So the media reports on the 'other view' just to avoid accusations of bias, even though it doesn't matter: Limbaugh and his ilk will ALWAYS be screaming about media bias.
- Profit. It's laughable that the media is falling over itself to reap profit, but then cuts costs in terms of equipment, resources, and staff. Bureaus are closed, photographers and editors are laid off, equipment runs until it breaks (as opposed to preventative maintenance). The "new" idea that's making the rounds at our shop is the 'multi-media journalist' ... a plan to roll photographer, editor, and reporter into a single person, without really taking a hard look at what that means in an operational sense.
What we're missing:
- CONTENT. Directing people to your web site is not enough, even if you have longer video clips there. That only underscores the value of the web site, and does not retain viewers. Even the head of the web team agrees with me on this one; meanwhile, the news department is trying the MMJ concept (which has already been tried at one local station and is a train wreck) and making the news more 'friendly' by turning the newsroom into a set.
These trends should be familiar to long-time news watchers. Instead of addressing the content and the information, it's all about external appearances. A new set, spiffy new graphics, different fonts, whatever.
In the end, it's simple. People aren't watching because their needs aren't being met by the content you provide.
is, and always was, a BROADCASTING axiom. Print media should never have embraced it, yet they did--to compete with the superficial broadcast media.
People get the media (it's a plural word, folks) they deserve--and demand. So start demanding.
turn off the comments on this and other sites that purport to further journalistic integrity. The unwashed masses--especially when anonymous--should not drive the discourse. Yet they do.
Just curious.
teach it at the college level.
am a former and current journalist myself. But the larger point is not what journalists think; it is what thinking Americans think. And, unfortunately, what non-thinking Americans are too happy to believe without investigation.
... it's a lack of critical thinking skills.
THAT's why the whole 'media bias' myth is what it is.
My expertise is just short of 24 years in broadcast news. I've been through six different news directors and watched trends come and go.
to say that "if it bleeds it leads" is strictly a broadcasting axiom. Broadcasters may have been the first to put it into those words, but the likes of Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst put it into action WAY earlier.
or Al Jazeera English will you see this kind of objective reporting.
I used to be a fan of Reuters but lately it has become infested with conservative journalists.
less about perspective (a particular political slant) than about agenda. But there's no denying that the neocons have known, since before Lee Atwater, that the key is to encourage and feed ignorance with misinformation and by polarizing people's viewpoints. It is just getting horrifyingly easy to do these days, as most people are far ytoo lazy about their media consumption.
It's not "media narrative"!! "Loosing the narrative, keeping the narrative" - This is nonsense postmodern spin. Of the Luntz type. PUT THERE TO CONFUSE.
People think the stimulus hasn't worked because it hasn't worked!! As any idiot will tell you, confidence in the economy is key to its recovery. The stimulus is a temporary infusion of soon-to-be-eroded purchasing power. That's what it's understood as.
2 + 2 does not equal 5. Down with the tyranny of the narrative!
Not only is the narrative implausible, it also damages people by supplanting their natural instincts, ethics, creativity etc.
People need the stimulation of problem solving to fully develop. But in the fantasy reality of the debt economy, the problem becomes how to lie effectively. In this environment psychopaths are encouraged to develop to their full potential.
The republicans do what they do well which is control the debate, create the narrative and define the democrats. Democrats always choose to do nothing, define nothing, narrate nothing while choosing instead to sit in a corner and cower with their thumbs up their asses. The msm gobbles everything the republicans say and do as if it were fact without ever discerning the reality and acting like journalists. This gentleman is 100% correct
Comments are closed on this entry