The Agonist - MSM Criticism

CNBC Very Interesting This Morning

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 06:13:04 -0700

It is a measure of the catastrophe unfolding right now that the pretty-people on CNBC are having really heated and serious discussions. Tempers were actually flaring a few moments ago as I watched. There's actually serious debate as to what in the world the Federal government is doing and how it got us into this mess. For example, words like lax enforcement of regulations on the books; the understaffing, actually the gutting of the SEC; the greed and corruption of the 'shadow banking system'. I could go on. I'm just pleased that finally the talking heads are sitting up and actually taking notice that they have a role to play. Maybe, for once in the last twenty years they might actually rise to the occasion. Optimistic, I know. But what else do we have to cling to?

Update: Interesting discussions still ongoing. And surprise of surprises, someone actually chimed in and raised my question about Paulson and Goldman and shorts and conflict of interest! I guess CNBC is now reading The Agonist.

Entertainment: CNBC

Mon, 15 Sep 2008 04:48:44 -0700

I'm watching CNBC right now. It sure is entertaining.

The big rumor this morning is AIG. Will it fail or not? I'll leave it to others to comment on that possibility. Although I'll preface it with a reminder that many said the monoliners wouldn't fail, that they were too important. But they did.

One lesson of this crisis: there is nowhere to hide.

Something else I heard on a Bloomberg podcast today while walking home from work was that Paulson and Bernanke did some front running with the Fannie/Freddie deal because they knew Lehman was going to fail. Kind of makes sense to me.

But as a general rule, anytime an anchor says, "this is going to be an historic morning," pretty much means the day will be very underwhelming.

Maybe, maybe not. We'll see.

Anyway, use this as an open thread and/or open post for the editors to post news stories or make comments on developments as the day progresses and the markets churn while I sleep and awake to either nothing, or absolute carnage.

I'll not be surprised to see either.

Now when the losses from the big bets on the oil bubble come in, then it will get amusing.

Next year, when the credit system is cross wired like a Christmas tree and the bill for the bail out comes due... we could see a climax to this bear market -
Stirling Newberry

** Bush: Economy Strong Enough to Handle Turmoil
** Wall Street crisis: Is this the death knell for derivatives?
** World stocks dive as Lehman collapses, oil slumps to $93bbl
** Wilbur Ross sees about 1,000 bank closures: report

When Good People Believe Bad Information

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:47:41 -0700

In the last five years, the media has become the stomping ground for corporate mouthpieces that not only own most of the media outlets, but also control the advertising revenues that keep these television, radio and newspapers afloat. This is a direct result of the “fairness doctrine” being scrapped by the FCC and also the placement of Michael Powell (the son of Colin Powell) to head the agency. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 also added fuel to the fire. According to Network:

The Telecommunications Act of 1996. Under the 1934 Communications Act, everything was clear and precise - there was NO option but to regulate - and the Commission did what the Act instructed it to do. The 1996 Act, however, introduced the so-called forbearance doctrine, where the Commission could, on its own initiative, refrain from regulating an industry segment. That's when things began to collapse. In its haste to create local exchange competition, the FCC went either too far or not far enough in the early days. Three methods of local competition were introduced: (1) Local resale, but the discounts were not deep enough and so hardly anyone chose that option; (2) Unbundled Network Elements (UNEs), where discounts were probably too deep, so everyone jumped in; and (3) Facilities based competition, which has not taken off because of the UNE discounts. Chairman Powell, who strongly favors facilities-based competition decided to "fix" the problem by moving too far too fast in the opposite direction by essentially deregulating UNE price regulation for the Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. The result: Policy disarray and chaos!

AP's 'Talking Points' Defending Fournier Surface

Mon, 01 Sep 2008 21:32:41 -0700

New York | September 1

Editor &Publisher - Longtime Associated Press political writer, and now AP Washington bureau chief, Ron Fournier, has been targeted by liberal groups and blogs lately for what they perceive as biased AP reporting against Barack Obama and Joe Biden. This was pushed along by a recent report at Politico.com that Fournier had been approached about working for John McCain in 2006.

AP has denied any slant and today Politico writer Michael Calderone posted on their site what AP calls "talking points" sent to AP editors by Ellen Hale, AP's vice president for corporate communications. Full story at Politico.com.

It's about time Fournier was targeted for his obvious biases. spk

Is John McCain A Troll? And Where Is The MSM On This?

Sat, 02 Aug 2008 14:19:31 -0700

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

Wikipedia: Troll [Internet]

Since hiring on Rove trained "communications advisers," the McCain has campaign has distinguished itself for it political ads that make many wonder whether John McCain as lost his marbles. However, anyone familiar with blog comments senses something familiar about the McCain ads.

Such ads are immediately recognizable as a form of trolling — introducing specious, irrelevant, and often outrageous "bait" in order to hijack discussion and distract attention from real issues. They need to be called out specifically on this loud and clear.

Political Parties, Corporations and the Truth

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:06:55 -0700

In this article I am going to make an attempt to clarify my views on this presidential race, U.S. foreign policy, the economy and what we are experiencing in this new era as far as our civil liberties, the constant threats (real and perceived) to our “security” and the increasing gap between the rich and the not so rich in this country. One could write a book about each of these subjects, putting everything in one article is a daunting task. I’m not an expert nor am I an economist, diplomat or a military genius. What I am attempting to do is separate fact from fiction as I see it. I’m sure that many will take exception to what I have to say and that’s understandable, we all can’t be mirror images of each other. I ask your indulgence beforehand.

My Country Right or Wrong...My Country

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:40:40 -0700

Those words…so haunting, seemingly harmless and benign, I love my country whether it’s right or wrong. That’s what the phrase means, right? To some it may mean that, but to me, it means something entirely different.

“My country right or wrong”, that part is entirely correct. The Egyptians, the Spartans, the Romans, the Spanish and the English all supported their nations, whether they were right or wrong. What most people don’t realize is that the last two words of that phrase changes the meaning so completely; “my country”.

The truth is that it is your country whether your country is right or wrong. It’s still your country. That makes you part and parcel of what is done in your name. “My Country” is the damning part of that phrase. Yes, it’s your country, and what your country does reflects on you. The truth may be that you have no real power to move your country in a different direction, but that doesn’t take away the fact that you are complicit. What your country does, what it stands for, or doesn’t stand for, is certainly part of your responsibility. You may only be one voice in the wilderness, but you still have that voice.

Iran-Contra Cliff's Notes on hostage crises, PSYOPS, parallel intel and GOP perception management, see 1991's "October Surprise"

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:37:37 -0700

There is another category of offenses, described by the French poet André Chenier as "les crimes puissants qui font trembler les lois," crimes so great that they make the laws themselves tremble. We know what to do with someone caught misappropriating funds, but when confronted with evidence of a systematic attempt to undermine the political system itself, we recoil in a general failure of imagination and nerve.

-- Gary Sick, October Surprise (p 226)

******

I have never understood why "normal" people are supposed to believe that the Iranians let the hostages go during Reagan's inauguration because he intimidated them, but then Reagan quickly pivoted to sell them all those weapons in the 1982-1986 period traditionally known as "Iran Contra". [Crossposted @ hongpong.com]

The New Yorker Obama cover revisited

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:03:12 -0700

Recently here at the Agonist we've had a few lively discussions about recent false media narratives created around both Barack and Michelle Obama. See for example Forgiven's, Machiavellian And The War of Words and my Presto, Uppity Angry Black Woman!

I know not everyone was convinced of our arguments. Fine. Let me make clear however that my purpose is not to provide partisan defense for Obama but to criticize the media and shed light on what I regard as deeply rooted racist, misogynistic and certainly anti-progressive and anti-democratic undercurrents in American culture.

On that note, for some historical perspective which compares the New Yorker cover to Bret F. Harte’s 1870 “Plain Language from Truthful James” poem see Rune Christensen's “The Heathen Obama”? The limits to satire in American politics.

rikyrah of Jack and Jill Politics has a terrific article which addresses the image as well as some of the deeper contexts to Michelle's unenviable position. As part of the guest series at Open Left see Update: Michelle Obama as Racial Rorschach Test

Michael Shaw provides an excellent deconstruction of the image here,The "What" Of What's Wrong With The Barack Osama New Yorker Cover. Shaw's analysis is important as he looks beyond the obvious surface communication and finds discourses which communicate some of the false narratives we've been discussing here.

So let me know what YOU think. And just to leave this post on a high note, THIS is satire.

Why Fox News canceled my interview about Netroots & the Troops - KO-worthy

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:48:07 -0700

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing

click to enlarge

Real Independence for All Americans

Fri, 04 Jul 2008 10:23:13 -0700

I have been wondering of late where it is on the political spectrum that I would feel comfortable? There was a time when I considered myself to be a Democrat. This wasn’t because I believed in the party’s platform; it was because I disagreed with the Republican point of view. The last seven years have reinforced my view of Republicans, but at the same time my fondness for the Democrats has also waned. The truth is that frankly, I don’t see much of a difference between the two; both the Republicans and the Democrats are financed by the same entities.

Who are the people behind the curtain, so to speak? Well, they are basically the same people and organizations that have always ruled in this country (with periodic breaks from time to time). These are the captains of industry and the bankers that back them, and lately, religious groups (that pop-up occasionally). The government claim that the people are behind the government and they are responsible for electing their government is patently untrue. The only thing that the people are responsible for is rubber-stamping the candidates that are selected for us. The two political parties, the Republicans and Democrats, seem to be the only game in town, so to speak. While it is true that this nation has other political parties, in national elections, there are basically only two parties that matter.

Fox News airs altered photos of NY Times reporters

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:37:44 -0700

July 2

Media Matters - During a segment in which Fox & Friends co-hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade labeled New York Times reporter Jacques Steinberg and editor Steven Reddicliffe "attack dogs," Fox News featured photos of Steinberg and Reddicliffe that appeared to have been digitally altered -- the journalists' teeth had been yellowed, their facial features exaggerated, and portions of Reddicliffe's hair moved further back on his head.

Obama: Walking a Thin Line

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:13:03 -0700

I can’t remember a time when the political landscape has been as bleak and littered by crackpot ideas than it is now. The two representatives of the duopoly that share power in this nation have consistently changed positions and both have endorsed the use of force (including first-strike nuclear attacks) on nations that are opposed to U.S. foreign policy. These positions would have been anathema to a presidential race just a few years ago, but now statements supporting pre-emptive nuclear strikes are talked about with hardly any eyebrows being raised, or indignation expressed.

This presidential race has become a “gotcha” fest of the lowest moral caliber. Instead of portraying themselves as morally worthy of holding the highest office in the land, the two major party candidates have consistently raised the bar of what is considered acceptable to Americans. Time and time again, ideas and policy statements that would have been unthinkable in the 20th century are now commonplace rhetoric on a planet that has seemingly forgotten the horrors of nuclear warfare, and now has become inured to scenes of death and destruction of civilian populations in the name of bringing “democracy and freedom” to the corpses that litter the streets and back alleys of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Why journalists must learn the values of the blogging revolution

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 06:18:58 -0700

June 25 | Roy Greenslade | The Guardian

The debate over blogging's usefulness to journalism tends to get stuck in a cul de sac, mainly because too few people - well, too few journalists - treat it seriously. At conferences I've attended recently, speakers have referred to blogging as little more than a sad ego trip. It is not regarded as having any real public service value.

I'll scream if I hear yet again that the blogosphere is a form of anarchy, a cacophony of self-centred and mischievous voices who are either talking to each other or talking to no-one at all. I'm not denying that aspect, though I don't see why people sitting at computer terminals day after day and downloading their thoughts should threaten civilisation as we know it.

What is also clear, most obviously in peer to peer blogging, is that people are engaged with each other as never before. Without any institutional or corporate coaxing, people are forming cyber communities in which they converse endlessly about their interests.

I say this as a preliminary to explaining why journalists, especially print veterans like me, are so suspicious of bloggers. We have spent our lives dominating conversations. No, that's wrong of course. We did not converse at all. We lectured. We provided the information that people feasted on in order to hold their own conversations.

From the People Who Brought Us Judith Miller and George Bush

Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:23:15 -0700

From the People Who Brought Us
Judith Miller & George Bush

Former New York New York Times reporter, Judith Miller, who wrongly
claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and her president.
(Images left, right)

The New York Times "Covers" the Susan Lindauer Hearing

Michael Collins
"Scoop" Independent News
Washington, DC

The New York Times disgraced itself and betrayed the citizens of the United States when it repeatedly headlined misleading stories by reporter Judith Miller that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The paper issued a meandering apology well after the 2003 invasion prompted by the inaccurate reporting of Miller, the self-styled "Miss Run Amok" reporter, and others. But it was too little and too late to correct the damage. And it seems the Times is still running amok at the expense of what's in the public interest.