Whigs vs. Tories
One of the most confusing terms in the media discussion is “objectivity.” In philosophy, it refers to a belief in a reality independent of the conscious mind, generally one that can more or less be known and meaningfully discussed.
In journalism, on the other hand, it means “don’t scare away any potential customers.”
“Objective” journalism emerged as newspapers realized that they were alienating potential readers by positioning themselves as a paper that saw the world through the lens of a particular party. Why be a Whig paper or a Tory paper, in other words, when you could be an independent paper read by both Whigs and Tories? Particularly when your main source of revenues—commercial advertisers—were hoping to sell to Whigs and Tories alike.
In practice, this meant that if the parties were disagreeing about something, you were supposed to report what both were saying without taking sides—even if, as it happened, it seemed like one side or the other had the truth on their side. Note that not only is this not the same as philosophical objectivity, it’s pretty much the opposite: Journalistic objectivity means that you can’t report what really happened, you can only report what both sides said happened.
(photo by NASA/Bill Ingalls)
You can see how this plays out in coverage of Barack Obama’s latest “gaffe.” Obama had said in Roanoke, Virginia (7/13/12):
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The words that were singled out, of course, were, “If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that.” Now, if you’ve got a basic understanding of the English language, you can see that the word “that” there doesn’t refer to “business”—it refers to “roads and bridges” in the previous sentence. If you can’t see that, you really shouldn’t be in the word business, and you might have difficulty understanding ordinary conversations with your friends.
But the Romney campaign did claim to believe that Obama was telling businesspeople that they hadn’t built their businesses, and ran an ad to that effect. And media people claimed that they took this claim seriously. Here’s Peter Baker in the New York Times (7/19/12):
It took only a few days for it to become a favorite Republican talking point. President Obama told an audience that “if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that; somebody else made that happen.”
Suddenly his critics had proof that he does not believe in individual success or the free market. Mitt Romney scrapped much of his stump speech on Wednesday to focus on the line and sent surrogates to reinforce the point. Mr. Obama’s aides said he was taken out of context, that he was referring to the value of public structures like bridges and roads in the nation’s commerce.
Either way, putting aside the predictable partisan cross-fire and the inevitable Internet-fueled distortions, even in proper context the president’s remarks crystallize a profound disagreement that defines this year’s campaign.
“Either way”—we don’t take sides here between the Whigs and the Tories!
(Photo by Mallory Benedict/PBS NewsHour)
The other way to maintain your “objectivity,” aside from believing both sides, is to disbelieve both sides. Thus Chicago Tribune blogger Eric Zorn (7/20/12) cited the Romney ad as an example of how campaigns “seize on their opponents’ unfortunate snippets of verbiage and loop them into attack ads”:
Did Obama mean to say that if a person has a business, he didn’t build the business, someone else did?
No. A fair reading of the transcript shows he was saying, in an admittedly unartful way, that business is built on and maintained by infrastructures provided by government, and that even the “self-made” man or woman owes a lot to the social compact sustained by taxes.
But Zorn had to preface this by suggesting that the Obama campaign had earlier been unfair to Romney and his statement, “I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there.” Zorn again:
Did the mega-wealthy Romney mean to say he’s not concerned with the plight of the poor?
No. A fair reading of the transcript shows he was saying, in an admittedly unartful way, that he has confidence in the social safety net and is focusing his policies on alleviating the problems of middle-income earners.
Really? It’s unfair to take Romney’s statement that he’s not concerned about the very poor as indicating that he’s not concerned about the very poor? The fact that he explains that the reason for his lack of concern is the existence of a safety net—one that does not, of course, eliminate widespread hunger, homelessness and death by medical neglect, and one that his policy proposals would virtually eliminate—doesn’t mean that he’s not actually saying that compared to the problems of the middle class, the problems of the poor are not worth bothering about.
But because Zorn has stuck up for Romney against the Obama campaign and for Obama against the Romney campaign—no one can accuse him of not being “objective.”
At some point, this is akin to arguing how many angels you can fit on the head of a pin, but I think Romney wasn’t expressing a lack of compassion for the very poor, and that the comment was unfairly characterized by the Obama campaign.
Words and deeds are very different things, however. Romney’s made it quite clear through his actions that he’s perfectly happy to let the poor eat cake.
If they can find a bakery dumpster.
Of course, ultimately that goes for Dear Misleader, as well.
And if Zorn is taking Romney at his word, or claiming to, he’s in the wrong business.
To succeed in that business, however, he’s got the right perspective, doesn’t he?
This was the line that I really liked: Journalistic objectivity means that you can’t report what really happened, you can only report what both sides said happened.
As a poor person who lived under a freeway for 18 months, Romney has a long, long way to go with all his selfish millions to convince ME that he gives a rat’s ash about the poor. When actions back up the words, “I’m not concerned about the very poor,” and lies about a nonexistant safety net follow it, what’s to quibble about? The man’s criminally-selfish “Christianity” belongs in a dumpster! Crimony! Even Judas showed more compassion than that!
this is one of *the* most important precursors to understanding modern media. articulating this point and teasing out its consequences is why FAIR exists. strong work, folks.
This does seem to be a popular mind set in much of the media: the POOR did it TO themselves, and the RICH did it BY themselves. Well objective reporters, after Steve Jobs was working in his garage, he made progress, but all those other people in SUPPORT and in low paying jobs in China ( those poor) made that dream a world wide reality. Did the newspaper make the reporters, or did all those reporters make the newspaper? Is there a corporation of ONE person anywhere in the world?
Doug, can you imagine someone who genuinely cared about the poor saying something like that? Perhaps if you were completely ignorant of the actual conditions of poor people’s lives.
The sad part is Romny really believes that the social safety net really works as it was intended; that the Poole are better taken care of than the middle class. He has convienced himelf that there is more than enough for the poor because he had to pay some taxes. Less than the average blue collar worker, but for those types one dollar is too much to share, unless it’s him, then its never enough.
so the man has no real concept of money in the working mans world.
Let’s clean up the misspelled words in this piece, please? I’d like to share it on my media page and I’m an independent journalist.
In the article, “built there businesses” of course should be “built their businesses”.
We live in a flowchart with no exit – and that means this same article about false objectivity has been published before and will be published again. I’ve gotten to the point where I want the bullshit to STOP. So the first step should be to BOYCOTT all the media outlets that insist on lying to us – and better, tell them “goodbye” because they refuse to support Democracy, over whatever game Tweedledee and Tweedledum play in Washington while our Democracy burns.
Mainstream American Media lie about everything and I do not consume them at all. Now if only everyone else would tune out of them – they would collapse, and perhaps we could reconstruct something useful from the ashes.
I just clicked over from another site: http://www.isabelmarantchaussures.fr/and figured I should take a look around. Like what I see so now I’m following you. Look forward to checking out your some of your posts again.
I just clicked over from another site: http://www.isabelmarantchaussures.fr/ and figured I should take a look around. Like what I see so now I’m following you. Look forward to checking out your some of your posts again.
I have been a reader of Fair for some time and thoroughly enjoy the work you all do. I complain however, that Fair was not fair in it’s assessment of Zorn’s argument. Romney believes that the poor are taken care of by a safety net that he appears to admit may need fixing. Obama is right to state that the wealth of many US companies has been produced by research conducted at taxpayer expense. While objective evidence appears to favor Obama (Romney’s policies and past behavior do not reflect a concern for the poor) they are both misleading in the way they characterize one another’s position. This is not poor reporting. There is no requirement that a side on an issue must be taken for a reporter to be considered objective. Objectivity means fidelity to the truth (and not his or her subjective truth), and this is made apparent when a reporter cuts through the political twisting of the truth. That Zorn failed to mention the disconnect between Romney’s statement and his actions as a politician is no fault because that may not have been the purpose of the article. Zorn’s intent appeared to be one of demonstrating how politicians twist the truth for political gain. Fair, however, is correct to point out that one of the most serious problems with mainstream media is that they do not focus on uncovering the deceit but simply state that it may or may not have occurred. I am reminded sadly of a statement by Hillary Clinton who said that people were turning to Al-Jazeera for their news because of misleading US coverage.
I must say this is a very compelling article by FAIR and I agree with ever word of it …right up till you plug it into the Obama statement.Because here I dont think it applies.This is not a one and done statement that Obama just flubbed.This is what he BELIEVES!He has said it many many times in many different ways.In things he has written even.We on the conservative side have pointed to this being his belief long before he was president ,or even Senator for that matter.When he was the young upstart talking at the DNC this was a favorite idea of his.And to make matters worse some of his people are doubling down on this and saying DAMN STRAIGHT!Even his denials/retractions sound weak and like double speak.And here is FAIR in essence carrying his water(small surprise).Look a ton of Libs feel this way.Like abortion and conservatism it may not always fly in the mainstream but Christ do you have ANY core values or beliefs?He believes this.A lot of you do to.Let fly.Stand up for what you believe and damn the politics.I felt it was Obama (again off telaprompter)being honest.Nice to hear his fork tongue straight for a damn change.
Jim, that’s precisely my point.
This mofo doesn’t give a rodent’s rear about anyone but himself and his class mates …
And I don’t mean who he went to school with.
But he’s not an idiot, hence the allusion to a safety net.
Now, anyone with a lick of sense, or humanity, knows that net has more holes in it than Blackburn, Lancastershire – always has – but when has that ever stopped a politician from deviating from reality?
Romney’s fully aware of the plight of the poor, and it’s not a matter of not caring.
It’s a matter of making goddamn sure they stay that way, so he and his plutocratic pals can do the billionaire boogie till they drop.
Claro?
I’d appreciate a response, so I know if you’ve caught my drift.
Much obliged.
I have even more questions from this article. If Mr. Romney said that he wasn’t concerned about the poor because they have a social safety net, are we supposed to think, that if he were president, that the social safety net would stay in place? Do we fill in the blanks based on our own beliefs? Does this mean too, that he is interested only in the middle class and in the highest income levels?
It seems that the highest economic levels do have a really big social safety net, so do I fill in the blanks that he is interested only in the middle class, because I don’t really get that from him either. I’m not sure where he stands on the state of all groups.
With the President’s quote, I can see the idea because it is framed very clearly as to why he said business didn’t grow totally on its own. Maybe the problem is coming from the incorrect use of technology.
Really old news clips show reporters with their mics aimed at the speaker as they ask a question, and the viewers get to hear tone of voice, see the body language and the reaction to the question for themselves. Now, we see video and a reporter stands in front of the scene and often gives an interpretation of what they say happened. Watching a person’s body, facial reaction, and tone of voice really gives more information to me. I wish we saw more of that in the news.
Of course, this can be sadly edited too. I saw a video of Mr. Dean yelling out in a very noisy crowd, and then all the background sound was removed. He really sounded like a crazy man. I am also concerned about those “anonymous sources giving information, although they are not allowed to say who they are, because they are not authorized to speak.” It’s hard to fact check that.
I’m with Tom Hedricks, that is the important sentence in the article.
As for Cameron, the independent journalist, are you too lazy to clean up the misspellings yourself; I’m so tired of lectures to others about their spelling(usually the result of a typo) when the meaning was clear as a bell.
Objectivity means reporting what happened in a factual manner; and letting the reader draw their own conclusions. But, that said, what one reporter sees may not be what another saw and that can and should lead to further research and reporting.
Anybody who thinks Obama is actually saying that no businesssman actually built the business they have is either a liar, ignorant, or taking things out of context to make Obama fit the confused and shallow impression they have of the man. Despite the Mt. Everest of evidence to the contrary, Mr. Obama is still believed by many right-wing yahoos to be a sinister, America-hating, business and capitalist-loathing Uber-Socialist.
And while I’m grateful that FAIR noticed the usuually good Eric Zorn of the Tribune clearly trying to find “equivalency” and “balance” where there isn’t any, you somehow missed the God-awful John Kass’ “journalism” the day after the President’s remarks. Kass is the right-wing colunist who’s column appears on page 2 of the Tribune about three times a week. Kass either deliberately took the President’s remarks out of context for fodder for one of his execrable columns, or he was simply lazy and heard the newly minted lying talking point on Fox or Drudge (or perhaps even read it in the NYT) and then ran with it. Kass has written many dumfounding or just plain dumb and fantastic things before, but this column is especially bad. Go to the Chicago Tribune‘s website and read his witless column to get the full flavor of what happens when wistful, fantastic, ahistorical earnestness is wedded to paranoid right-wing ravings.
Even being well aware of the Corporate Press’ mendacity and cowardice, the bullshit written by the NYT reprter above is still shocking and outrageous. I expect nonsense from a right-wing hack like Kass (page two of the Trib! Wow!), and of course the trolls who visit here and elsewhere.
I wasn’t aware that Romney lived under a freeway for 18 months.
Romney, like Reagan before him, and so many others believe the poor are poor because they choose to be. The argument goes something like this: (1) America is the land of unlimited opportunity. All Americans, whether rich or poor, have the same opportunity. Therefore the poor are poor because they choose to be. It also follows from this same sort of reasoning that the rich are rich because they choose to be. This kind of thinking seems to be pervasive in our society even amongst poor people. A factory opens up and a thousand people apply for a job but only 100 are a hired. How do they other 900 responds? Too often they feel that they didn’t get a job because they lacked something the others had. It was their personal failure. Conversely those 100 who got jobs feel that they got that certain something the others hadn’t. I’m sure Romney and so many others feel that their wealth was garnered by exceptional personal attributes that only a few possess. Or they’ve been blessed by some mystical being that’s been known by many names, in this country often called God.
George Bush hates Black people……Romni hates the poor…Obama hates whites…Blah blah blah.So much nonsense.But this is a simple,socialist belief that Obama has always held.Collective wealth.
Look why are you even arguing that Obama did not mean what he said?While you do -his own inner circle has doubled down.I see some double speak but little effort to try to clearly say that people who have built their life’s dreams in private business ,did not need government.(In fact they need a lot less government.)You hear Obama yesterday saying there would be no internet without government input.Basically buttressing his argument.And thats fine.You just can’t have it both ways.He meant it.Be proud and wave your freak flag.If he was taken out of context what does he believe.?Hmmmmm?
“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students, the foreign students, the Chicanos, the Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets…. At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz [sic] Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy. When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society’s stifling constraints. We weren’t indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated.” [From, Dreams from my Father, 100-101]
My question is this.When did he have his come to Jesus moment where he realized how wrong he was in the above regards?Answer ….he never has.Find me where he has denigrated his choices at that time in his belief structures of ‘this ‘time..That man I say still lives within Barrack Obama.He speaks in his book of his mentors and the importance in his GROWTH.One a Eurocentric Marxist.Rev wright a black separatist.Saul Alynski.There are others that are worrisome.Alarming?You bet ya.Has he seen the light?I think this speech that we are discussing proves he has not.Or is just more proof if you need any that he has not?I think he has learned some truths in his 4 years.But he is still an ideolog.He will keep making all the wrong choices for a robust capitalist country.Because he has no experience or understanding at his core how that works to everyones advancement.In fact….he does not believe it.And that is fine.Just not for the president of this country.
Doug Latimer: “At some point, this is akin to arguing how many angels you can fit on the head of a pin, but I think Romney wasn’t expressing a lack of compassion for the very poor, and that the comment was unfairly characterized by the Obama campaign.”
Doug, I read your comment the way Jim N apparently did. I was surprised, actually, when I read it. It didn’t sound like you. I wonder if there’s a typo in there or something.
Jamie, it’s always frustrating when your meaning is misconstrued.
Take another look at my original comment, and my reply to Jim’s response, see if you still discern a contradiction in what I’m saying here, and what I’ve said previous to it, and let me know what you think.
I think the larger point is that we should be wary of jumping on every perceived revelation of the dark hearts that beat within the breasts of the Romneys of the world.
That they do is beyond dispute, but we need to be dead solid certain that their words lay bare their spiteful and sadistic nature before we proffer them as patently obvious proof of same.
Their actions provide ample evidence of their inhuman intent, don’t they?
Doug…inhuman????Really????Talk about mud slinging..Inhuman intent……Im gonna save that little gem.
Thanks, Doug. I get what you’re saying now. It wasn’t clear to me from your first post.
I think FAIR is becoming too partisan. Let’s address the misreporting both ways. There is plenty of that to go around. Too bad, but the disease of partisanship seems incurable.
Glad to hear it, Jamie.
And while we’re on the subject …
in·hu·man /inˈ(h)yo͞omən/
Adjective: 1.Lacking human qualities of compassion and mercy; cruel and barbaric.
2.Not human in nature or character.
Synonyms: inhumane – cruel – brutal – barbarous – savage
Works for me.
And, in another, horrific, way, it works for Romney, Obama and those they serve.
In Romney’s case, it’s more a matter of self service, isn’t it?
Yes, there are differences, but at bottom, they are differences of degree, and not kind.
And I think we ignore that essential truth to our dire detriment.
Doug…Who is NOT inhuman?
Michael, you should direct that question to those who’ve experienced it in its most naked form, at the hands of governments and corporations who have murdered, raped, pillaged and destroyed in the name of profit and power.
We can type away at this safe little board till the cows come home, but the reality is out there.
I try in my wholly inadequate way to speak to it, and for them.
It may be a fool’s errand, but I’d encourage you to consider the “collateral damage” of the system you champion, and recognize that it is no accident.
It’s the logical consequence of greed and the desire to dominate, which have been the bane of human existence since well before the coining of the term “capitalism”.
That ideology simply took those inhuman traits to their logical extreme.
And with that, I’ll exit, stage left, as I really don’t know what else to say, and in any event I doubt it would make the least impression upon you.
No Doug I do understand that within all of us lies some DNA that has led to the expansion of human kind across all boarders.Violent at times ,dispossessing one for the other.Yeah I get that.But it really is the half empty glass.I also see the amazing, complicated life we all lead with wondrous expectations.And yes that exists in spades in the “system i trumpet”You see the other side.
I sometimes do wonder- if anyone running for the job of president for instance knows that holding that job will likely make him a killer of other people.Who would ever want that job?Do you have to be cracked to apply?
Every week FAIR has some article about how the Republicans are doing wrong esp. vis-à-vis the Democrats. They allow themselves to be shills for the DP because they have drunk the partisan Kool-Aid.
Perhaps they can expose the Republican politicians and their mouthpieces for the greedy heartless Machiavellian douchebags that they are. But they can in the same article point out the equally heartless Democrats who for instance hold weekly assassination meetings and who are silently pushing through the Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement which will not only export more jobs but will give up our legal sovereignty to corporations.
If someone ran a study on FAIR’s coverage of wrongdoings by Democrats, they would find the same kind of underreporting of facts that FAIR accuses MSM of regarding corporations and Republicans.
Finally, a spellchecker would be a nice addition to this blog.
Freespirit,I have heard a few asides relating to the left on this sights articles.But the gist of every article,and I mean 100% of them is not leaning to the left…it is falling that way at the speed of sound.I think an honest appraisal of FAIR is it is a sight dedicated to attacking any and all thought in writing and speech of the right.Totally partisan.I am usually the only conservative contributor saying” hold on thar babalouie”There might be another side to this coin that oh lets say 150 million people agree with
If someone wants to do a study of FAIR’s coverage of Democratic wrongdoing, I suggest they start with a search on the word “drone” on both FAIR.org and the FAIR Blog (which have separate search functions).
I’ll let Chris Hedges have the last word on this.
The image of Mengele’s nightmarish nonchalance is soul shattering.
The Careerists
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/07/23-0
All it takes for evil to triumph in the world is for good persons to do nothing
And for the soulless to do their jobs
Correction: The trade agreement that the Obama administration is secretly passing through is called Trans Pacific Partnership not Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement! My apologies.
See the June 15 CounterSpin broadcast on the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
https://fair.org/index.php?page=4565
Two problems with this.
1.) the way it’s written here Obama DID say the business owner did not create their business. If you want it to read as he meant it, change the punctuation. Don’t blame the reader for reading what you wrote.
2.) Romney expressed a lack of concern for the poor, and gave a reason, but its his stated concern for the middle class that proves his lack of concern for the poor, not the reason. Omitting that proof makes your critique as pointless as the one your criticizing.
Well I heard Mitts statement and never doubted for a moment what he meant.Not in context or fact.He simply pointed out that we have a safety net in place for the poor but nothing for the middle class .They are completely on their own.It is a huge leap from there to say he cares not one wit for the poor.
Obama has tried to say that what he was saying was……………it sounds plausible if not believable.But here is the disconnect.He has never gone into an explanation of how wrong it would be if he did believe the “out of context statement”.And he never will.Because he believes it!He may not of wanted to state it as it came out,but he believes it.His own people have doubled down on it while he squirms out and tells them to shut the hell up.People on this sight believe it.Like a rank racist using the word nigger when he meant to read from his speech and say Tigger.He can stand up and say that he meant to say otherwise.But you wont here him arguing against the word nigger.I want to hear Obama say the reverse words.YOU DID BUILD IT.And then expound on that idea of rugged individual entrepreneurialism .Building FOR oneself BY oneself .For a profit motive.Devoid of anecdotal ties to everyone elses help.Shared ownership indeed.Roads and bridges indeed.If all you needed was a road or a bridge outside your business there would be no failures.
I often wonder what michael e would be doing if not posting hopelessly incomprehensible, grammatically challenged rants on this site. Maybe his family, neighbors, an associates are better off because of the time he spends at the keyboard. So right on, michael e, write on.
michael e wrote: Obama has tried to say that what he was saying was……………it sounds plausible if not believable.But here is the disconnect.He has never gone into an explanation of how wrong it would be if he did believe the “out of context statement”.
_________________________________________________
So he needs to explain how wrong it would be for him to believe something that he never said? That’s how this works is it? I can see it now…
Reporter: Mr. President, what of your statement that Mitt Romney has plans to sell poor children’s organs for zoo meat?
President: What!? I never said that??!! What the hell are you talking about?
So now under the michael e rules of politics Obama would then need to explain how wrong it would have been for him to have said the zoo meat comment that he never said in the first place.
The press should hold no sides and report accurately what they said and what it means they said regardless of whose toes are stepped on. Right or wrong, not to take sides as they have. As their owners have for 90% of them.
Let’s get back to the basic premise of this article, viz. that mainstream reporting’s so-called objective journalism is to maximize profit by selling newspapers to both (or all) sides on any issue. So one question I have: if that’s the case, does this jive with FAIR’s repeated assessment that mainstream reporting is heavily weighted towards conservative viewpoints? If the guiding principle is to appeal to both sides then it might suggest that FAIR’s assessment is incorrect. Or it might mean the premise of this article is incorrect. I believe the latter. The fundamental division in society is not between liberal and conservative, but between those who have control over the production and distribution of goods and services (call them for convenience the 1%) and everyone else (the 99%). The fact of the matter is that there are differences between newspapers, for example, the NY Times and the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. But these differences reflect differences of opinion on political strategies and economic policies and other issues of concern to the 1%, not the 99%. As an example, look how the NY Times reports on global warming vs the Wall Street Journal. The range of the discussion and the depth of that discussion is set by the 1%, not by selling copies to both sides (anyway, I bet the major source of income is from advertizers). The mainstream media have always been their forum. If you see little discussion of major budgetary issues with regards to defense, for example, that’s because the 1% is unified in its position on that. Ditto for Israel, although I believe we’re starting to see some disintegration in the ranks over Israel as it becomes more and more a liability to the 1%. So in short what drives mainstream media’s content is not a desire to sell to everyone. There are differences between newspapers and other outlets, but these differences represent divisions within the 1%. (By the way, I have rather reluctantly used the 1% vs the 99% because as far as I can determine for the most part occupy people look at income and don’t see the connection between one’s income and one’s relationship with the control over the production and distribution of goods and services. I hope one day they do.) Last comment: it’s hard to write in these little boxes. And I refuse to be so premediated as to write things out in a Word file then cut and paste.
@JB: Your analysis just above is well reasoned and well presented (unlike the musings of certain frequent posters here who never fail to provide supercilious cuteness from the left and inchoate drivel from the right regardless of the subject at hand).
Yes, those in control of the production of goods and services also control the media to the extent that, for one example, little or nothing is currently reported about the horrendous excesses of the Department of Defense. On the contrary, the New York Times has just published a column by its Washington Bureau chief, David Leonhardt, (Capital Ideas, Sunday Review, 7/22) that implies a man-made climate crisis has yet to occur and will soon be averted by fracking. So much for inside-the-Beltway priorities and insights.
I would say, though, that the 1% does not yet have full control over the media. That day is on the way, certainly, and though both the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal have obviously sold their souls to the devil, the NYT still attempts, granted somewhat lamely, to addresses crises that are anathema to the ruling plutocracy, such as the needs for financial and health regulations, higher taxes, fiscal spending, and gun controls.
When such comment no longer appears in the major media, you’ll know it’s all over for the American democracy.
Thanks to today’s current economic downturn, many people are having a difficult time trying to pay the bills. Using coupons is one of the easiest and most effective ways to save your money. By applying the proven and effective coupon advice you’ve learned from this article you can save big!