# no bias in the media?



## Archangel M (Apr 20, 2009)

[yt]8Roug43_jvY[/yt]

STORY


> CNNs Susan Roesgen, an alleged reporter covering the Chicago Tea Party, lashed out at the participants like an angry MoveOn.org member. What does this have to do with taxes? she demanded of one attendee, as he held his 2-year old and spoke of personal liberty. Dont you realize youre eligible for a tax credit, she shouted at him. Dont you know that Illinois is getting stimulus money?


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 20, 2009)

Illinois is getting Stimulus money, but Taxes are increasing.  Oh wait... thats not accurate.  Chicago is instituting a NEW tax, but the oppressive sales tax is being reduced by... ready?  1/4 of a percent.

Stimulus money.  Bah.


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 20, 2009)

As though we shouldn't care about theft perpetrated against others, as long as it isn't perpetrated against ourselves. 

Susan Roesgen is the worst kind of person, because she is perfectly content to profit from suffering, as long as it is the suffering of others.


-Rob


----------



## Big Don (Apr 20, 2009)

Roesgen railed about FOX news promoting the Tea Parties, and yet, failed to get a job there, twice.


----------



## blindsage (Apr 21, 2009)

This is not reporting. Not sure what you call it. Divisive sensationalizing for ratings?  Reporters should never be arguing with people on the scene.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Apr 21, 2009)

blindsage said:


> This is not reporting. Not sure what you call it. Divisive sensationalizing for ratings? Reporters should never be arguing with people on the scene.


 
They have reporting on the news?

Susan Roesgen's behaviour is scandalous. Even with Fox actively promoting the Tea Partys, if not sponsoring them, and CNN actively ignoring them up to the day they ocurred, there's no excuse for her attitude towards the people she's interviewing.


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 21, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> They have reporting on the news?



Nowhere I have seen...


----------



## Hudson69 (Apr 21, 2009)

I remember when CNN was always reporting fresh news instead of getting an hours worth of feed and then just repeating it over and over for the next five and now there is this.  That gal was verbally abusive and then took a shot at FOX News.  This alone was enough to get to watch Fox or MSNBC and not CNN.  I have not heard anything based on fact yet about the Tea Parties either for that matter; and lets get started on the Janine Garaffolo comments.


----------



## rhn_kenpo (Apr 21, 2009)

It isn't a question, it is a fact.  Many studies, some of them actually reputable, have concluded that the unbiased mass media outlet does not (and probably never did) exist.    

Explicit bias and endlessly focusing on the daily shiny-object are just some of the reasons that big media is a dying industry.


----------



## grydth (Apr 21, 2009)

Try to even imagine an ACORN event or gun control crowd getting such condescending treatment from CNN's Thelma and Louise.

So soaring taxes have no relation to loss of freedom, huh? Laugh at that one all the way to the soup kitchen!

The main stream media long ago became discontented with merely reporting the news. Look at all the wrong choices people were making! Now, with a little shaping here, a little slanting there, a nice big lie or two...... 'Yes, here's all the things we think you should know to make the right, er, the left choices."

Call it noise, not news.


----------



## Marginal (Apr 22, 2009)

grydth said:


> So soaring taxes have no relation to loss of freedom, huh? Laugh at that one all the way to the soup kitchen!


Soaring? 

Well, at least it's worth calling for the armed overthrow of the government over.


----------



## crushing (Apr 22, 2009)

Marginal said:


> Soaring?
> 
> Well, at least it's worth *calling for the armed overthrow of the government* over.


 

Is that how CNNs Susan Roesgen described the nationwide public demonstrations?  Or maybe it Markos Moulitsas's descripton?  They do go over the top.


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 22, 2009)

Marginal said:


> Soaring?


 
Yes soaring.

When a currency is backed by, or even made of, a real commodity of consistent value then that currencies value will also be consistent. This is why historically currencies were either made of, or backed by, precious metals which hold a constant value by weight and purity. Unfortunately for the state, this made it hard to uncontrollably increase the money supply in order to fund the many wars they wished to participate in, and so they divorced the currency from its commodity backing and left it to float. The reason governments can get away with this is because of the money illusion. 

The money illusion refers to the tendency of most people to think of their money in nominal terms instead of real terms. For instance, many people would say that there is no nominal value difference between a five dollar bill now, a five dollar bill ten years ago, and a five dollar bill eighty years ago. However, the reality is that in the last eighty years, the five dollar note has lost so much value, that what was five dollars then would cost you nearly sixty dollars now. Here's a quick little calculator to show you how worthless your money has become. By disguising the devaluation of the currency through inflation and seigniorage, and relying on the money illusion, the state is able to hide its theft from the people.

Removing taxation would immediately reduce the cost of goods and services by more than 22 percent. Even worse, since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, the federal reserve note has lost 94% of its purchasing power to inflation. Additionally, by some estimates, nearly 70% of your money goes back to the government through taxation, tariffs, and fees. This combines to reduce your purchasing power to approximately 1.8 percent of the face value of your currency. In a system with commodity based monies, you would have the full value of your currency, increasing your purchasing power by nearly 5000 percent. 

But that's not the end of it. Each dollar collected by government is a dollar not invested in the growth of the economy. A mere 3 percent tax increase from 21 to 24 percent costs the economy nearly 200 percent of the value of the money taxed over 50 years. And that number increases exponentially with greater taxation. That's money that never existed, was never invested, never earned, and never spent. By removing that money from the economy, government continues to depress the standard of living of all Americans, rich and poor. What's more, in many industries, wages are growing slower than inflation, so every year, people are actually making less than the year before.

You see, taxation _is _soaring, but it isn't the only way the government steals money from the people. In a fiat economy, you can't control the value of your money, or by extension your asset wealth because even if you hide your money under the mattress the government can steal it's value by printing more.

Until our money is backed by _real_ commodities again, the government will continue to steal from the people through overprinting, hyperinflation, and interest rate manipulation.



> When the money is socialized, there can be no such thing as private property.
> -Stefan Molyneux


 

-Rob


----------



## blindsage (Apr 22, 2009)

I'm not sure your entire train of logic works since we only went off the Gold Standard in 1971.  In all the years before that inflation was still at work and your thesis doesn't account for it at all.   I think there may be benefits to going back to the Gold Standard or a related one, but I don't think your rationales for it add up.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 22, 2009)

boy has this thread gone tangential.


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 22, 2009)

blindsage said:


> I'm not sure your entire train of logic works since we only went off the Gold Standard in 1971. In all the years before that inflation was still at work and your thesis doesn't account for it at all. I think there may be benefits to going back to the Gold Standard or a related one, but I don't think your rationales for it add up.


 
Perhaps you aren't aware that our government and governments around the world suspended the gold standard during both World Wars, as well as during other hisorical wars, suppressed the value of gold through price and supply controls, cheated the gold standard by offering to exchange gold standard notes at historical, rather than current values, and when that wasn't enough to support the massive spending necessary to fund Lyndon Johnson's Great Society and the Vietnam War, finally abandoned the gold standard all together in favor of fiat currency they could print on demand.

Arguing that the gold standard proves that inflation occurs absent fiat currency would only be valid if the gold standard wasn't constantly violated by the major world powers of the day for nearly a hundred years. Inflation can occur in commodities backed economies, but only as the result of natural forces acting on the market place. In fiat currency economies, inflation is the result of artificially injecting massive amounts of currency into a closed system and supressing or inflating interest rates.

There are many, many pages on the internet describing the pattern of fiat currencies throughout history, from inception, usually in order to fund foreign adventurism, to inflation, overprinting, and devaluation, to ultimate hyperinflation and complete economic collapse.

This isn't a new idea. It's been tried by governments again and again and again. It's always followed the same pattern and ended the same way.


-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 22, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> boy has this thread gone tangential.


 
True.

The original post showed what I think is a clear bias on the part of at least one media organization.

I'm not sure if anyone saw it, but John Stewart did a great bit on the daily show last week where he compared Fox News' support of the tea parties, with CNN's clear bias against them, with MSNBC making crude sexual innuendos about "teabagging" all day long.

I'd say it's clear that the infortainment networks each have an agenda, but I'm not sure which is most deplorable.


-Rob


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 22, 2009)

And if anybody thinks that their local stations, papers and radio stations are any different I would say that they are mistaken.


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 22, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> And if anybody thinks that their local stations, papers and radio stations are any different I would say that they are mistaken.


 
Most of the time, most of what is reported in the local media is just the national media story handed down the line, with a few local human interest stories thrown in for color.

Look at your local paper and compare the number of AP and Reuters bylines to the number of local stories. There isn't much being offered that's any different up or down the line.


-Rob


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 22, 2009)

True, but all you have to do is look at the types of stories they put on display and then read the editorials. Papers have always had a "left or right lean". 

Many local outlets are owned by conglomerates when you follow the money too....


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 22, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> True, but all you have to do is look at the types of stories they put on display and then read the editorials. Papers have always had a "left or right lean".
> 
> Many local outlets are owned by conglomerates when you follow the money too....


 
This is the value I still see in the mass media. 

As long as I know the bias of the show I'm watching, I can just read between the lines and compare it to other shows that have a differing bias in order to get a more complete picture of events.

If you couple that with an exploration of alernative media, you can learn a lot, both about media bias, which clearly exists, and what's really going on, which is rarely reported on.


-Rob


----------



## Gordon Nore (Apr 22, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> I'm not sure if anyone saw it, but John Stewart did a great bit on the daily show last week where he compared Fox News' support of the tea parties, with CNN's clear bias against them, with MSNBC making crude sexual innuendos about "teabagging" all day long.



I saw it also. Behind the comedy, it was a very good analysis of where the networks position themselves.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 22, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> When a currency is backed by, or even made of, a real commodity of consistent value then that currencies value will also be consistent.



The key word is "consistent".  There are no truly consistent commodities.  Even when money actually was gold and silver instead of just being backed by it, the value of the currency could radically change.  In one example, in the 17th century, a flood of new silver mines exploited in the New World caused a radical inflation of the silver money of the time.

There are no magic bullets.


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 22, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> The key word is "consistent". There are no truly consistent commodities. Even when money actually was gold and silver instead of just being backed by it, the value of the currency could radically change. In one example, in the 17th century, a flood of new silver mines exploited in the New World caused a radical inflation of the silver money of the time.
> 
> There are no magic bullets.


 
You are exactly correct. In fact, that is the only way that commodity backed currencies' value can fluctuate radically, if the market becomes flooded with that commodity.

But the market has a response to that as well. People will still require an intermediary device for commerce in order to address the problem of the coincidence of wants. If silver no longer fits that need, they will use something else, whether it's a different metal, or whiskey, or bear skins, or IPhones.

You are right that there are no magic bullets, but there are deadly poisons, and fiat currency is definitely one. It's history is undeniable.


-Rob


----------



## Marginal (Apr 22, 2009)

crushing said:


> Is that how CNN&#8217;s Susan Roesgen described the nationwide public demonstrations?  Or maybe it Markos Moulitsas's descripton?  They do go over the top.


No, the random bearded guys in the crowds with signs like "Revolation!" tended to be asserting that without any any additional estate filtering their message further. (Fox = This man are patriot! CNN = LOLZ teabagger! etc...)


----------



## crushing (Apr 22, 2009)

Marginal said:


> No, the random bearded guys in the crowds with signs like "Revolation!" tended to be asserting that without any any additional estate filtering their message further. (Fox = This man are patriot! CNN = LOLZ teabagger! etc...)



I meant the "armed overthrow" part.  A revolution is a drastic change in thinking or behavior and doesn't necessarily require arms or even an overthrow (other than an overthrow of old ideas).  I haven't heard anyone say anything about a coup.  It doesn't sound like there was anything random about whom you chose from the crowds to make a generalization about the whole demonstration/movement.


----------



## Marginal (Apr 23, 2009)

crushing said:


> I meant the "armed overthrow" part.  A revolution is a drastic change in thinking or behavior and doesn't necessarily require arms or even an overthrow (other than an overthrow of old ideas).  I haven't heard anyone say anything about a coup.  It doesn't sound like there was anything random about whom you chose from the crowds to make a generalization about the whole demonstration/movement.


Well, there was also the guy from one of the crowds on Hannity advocating that while Hannity did a little happy dance and offered whatever assistance he possibly could.  

That aside, nobody seems to have a clue about what the heck they're trying to protest going by the interviews of the participants. "We're being taxed to death." (While carrying signs with Regan's face on them who had a higher tax rate in place....) "We're suffering greater tyranny than under George III!"

*sigh* Yes. Yes we are. The US that only existed in your fevered grime ridden nostalgia trips is rapidly fading from your grasp. Time to march around with a misspelled sign!


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 23, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> Yes soaring.
> 
> When a currency is backed by, or even made of, a real commodity of consistent value then that currencies value will also be consistent. This is why historically currencies were either made of, or backed by, precious metals which hold a constant value by weight and purity. Unfortunately for the state, this made it hard to uncontrollably increase the money supply in order to fund the many wars they wished to participate in, and so they divorced the currency from its commodity backing and left it to float. The reason governments can get away with this is because of the money illusion.
> 
> ...



QFT!

This is the most important issue in politics today.  I consider myself "left" on most issues, but I'm willing to put it all aside to support this.  I wouldn't vote for Ghengis Khan if he supported this, but I'll vote for any reasonable candidate that has a plan to pursue this.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 23, 2009)

How the gold standard contributed to the Great Depression.

Ultimately, the reason why we're not on the Gold Standard and wont ever return to it is that there are simply too many of us, too many humans, walking the face of the Earth, for gold to be a usable basis for currency. There has to be the metal available regardless of using coun or gold certificates. We've replaced our faith in gold with our faith in the system, in each other, which is where the value of any currency in any form is drawn.

Not to mention the drastic reduction in wages that would have to happen to re-impliment a gold backed currency.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 23, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> The key word is "consistent".  There are no truly consistent commodities.  Even when money actually was gold and silver instead of just being backed by it, the value of the currency could radically change.  In one example, in the 17th century, a flood of new silver mines exploited in the New World caused a radical inflation of the silver money of the time.
> 
> There are no magic bullets.



Joules.  Value = Energy.  Imagine if every dollar had an exchange rate in energy.  Imagine if every item was priced according to the energy of supply and demand.  

This is a physics equation and I am just barely scratching out some numbers.  I don't know what to tell you, but I think there is something to it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 23, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> How the gold standard contributed to the Great Depression.



Basically, it blames the Gold Standard for shrinking the money supply during the Depression.  It should be noted that, Ben Bernanke, the current head of the Federal Reserve, believes that the Depression was the fault of the Central Banks.  He has stated on the record that they deliberately contracted the money supply.  Alan Greenspan, another head of the Central Bank, has also stated this.  Greenspan also was an ardent supporter of Hard Currency, back in the day.

So, what are you going to say?  Here's an author who is blaming the depression on the Gold Standard in order to defend the Central Bank, but the last two former heads of the Central Bank have said that it was the Federal Reserves fault.  

I'm thinking that a certain village idiot "on campus" didn't get the memo.  LOL!


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 23, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> How the gold standard contributed to the Great Depression.
> 
> Ultimately, the reason why we're not on the Gold Standard and wont ever return to it is that there are simply too many of us, too many humans, walking the face of the Earth, for gold to be a usable basis for currency. There has to be the metal available regardless of using coun or gold certificates. We've replaced our faith in gold with our faith in the system, in each other, which is where the value of any currency in any form is drawn.
> 
> Not to mention the drastic reduction in wages that would have to happen to re-impliment a gold backed currency.



You can set the standard to whatever you wish and, over time, the monetary system will stabilize.  You shouldn't confuse past standards with what could happen.  We could have a gold Standard that would represnet our modern currency and it would be no problem.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 23, 2009)

The gold standard and the great depression.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 23, 2009)

The golden anchor



> *The gold standard and the Great Depression.* The current judgment of economic historians (see, for example, Barry J. Eichengreen, _Golden Fetters_) is that attachment to the gold standard played a major part in keeping governments from fighting the Great Depression, and was a major factor turning the recession of 1929-1931 into the Great Depression of 1931-1941.
> 
> Countries that were not on the gold standard in 1929--or that quickly abandoned the gold standard--by and large escaped the Great Depression
> Countries that abandoned the gold standard in 1930 and 1931 suffered from the Great Depression, but escaped its worst ravages.
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 23, 2009)

LOL!  We're back on topic!  Bias in the media indeed!


----------



## Gordon Nore (Apr 23, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> LOL!  We're back on topic!  Bias in the media indeed!



I've referred to this comment before on another thread, but I thought I'd bring it up again here. I'm normally not a particular consumer of Arianna Huffington's blog or commentary, but I ran across an interesting comment she made in a magazine interview some months ago. When asked about media bias, she argued that the problem to her mind was not bias per se, but that network news programs treat every story as if it must have a left-right / Republican-Democrat side to it.

This is where cable news falls down for me. CNN is the only US news I tend to watch, so I'll limit my comments to that network. A story like waterboarding or the President's release of memos on torture are released, and immediately "the best political team on television" is called in to comment. The typical roster of pundits contains people with ties to leadership of the one of the two parties, so their commentary is highly predictable. So then, instead of the viewer forming an opinion on the story, it becomes an exercise in the viewer deciding which pundit made the best argument, but it's so skewed because the pundits have come with an agenda.

So, I'm inclined to think, if the TV networks have biases -- just as newspapers often do -- that's not really the problem. The problem, to me, is that they simply won't tell us the story. Too many news programs consist of anchors talking to other reporters or pundits. The people inside the story almost get pushed to the background because the priority if for people to form opinions, not to be informed of events.

CBC radio produces a program called _As It Happens_, which consciously reverses this trend, and has done so for many years. The hosts of the program almost never talk to reporters. They do mostly phone interviews with witnesses and participants in the story. The program's available on public radio in the US, and, I would imagine, satelite radio elsewhere. It's really quite interesting to listen to because it reverts back to an old style of journalism -- simply telling a story.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 23, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> I've referred to this comment before on another thread, but I thought I'd bring it up again here. I'm normally not a particular consumer of Arianna Huffington's blog or commentary, but I ran across an interesting comment she made in a magazine interview some months ago. When asked about media bias, she argued that the problem to her mind was not bias per se, but that network news programs treat every story as if it must have a left-right / Republican-Democrat side to it.
> 
> This is where cable news falls down for me. CNN is the only US news I tend to watch, so I'll limit my comments to that network. A story like waterboarding or the President's release of memos on torture are released, and immediately "the best political team on television" is called in to comment. The typical roster of pundits contains people with ties to leadership of the one of the two parties, so their commentary is highly predictable. So then, instead of the viewer forming an opinion on the story, it becomes an exercise in the viewer deciding which pundit made the best argument, but it's so skewed because the pundits have come with an agenda.
> 
> ...



This is a brilliant post because that's exactly what happens.  The Left/Right thing is entirely contrived and opinions are literally being crafted for consumption along those lines.  

I listen to AIH all of the time.  It's a great program and I appreciate the old style of reporting.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Apr 23, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> This is a brilliant post because that's exactly what happens.  The Left/Right thing is entirely contrived and opinions are literally being crafted for consumption along those lines.
> 
> I listen to AIH all of the time.  It's a great program and I appreciate the old style of reporting.



I guess this goes to the difference between TV and newspapers. As a number of people have pointed out, newspaper biases are understood -- indeed they're reflected especially on the editorial pages. For many years The Toronto Star and the dailies under the old Southam News chain were understood to be 'liberal,' just as the national Globe and Mail was understood to be conservative.

TV doesn't have the editorial section. It constantly brings in people not only to editorialize but to react. So there's this constant clash of event reporting and editorializing. 

I'll relate another anecdote I've shared before. During my son's seventh grade year in middle school, there was a stabbing the school. A student from outside the school entered the building and assaulted a girl in the washroom in what was later termed a 'case of mistaken identity.' Staff responded appropriately, and locked the building down. My son happened to be in the music room where there was a phone and was able to call home, though he obviously had no details, other than to say that he and his immediately classmates were safe.

My wife and a neighbour raced to the school and waited in a designated area set up by police. Immediately, reporters from two different stations shoved mics in her face and asked her what was happening. When she said she didn't know, they asked her what she _*thought*_ was happening. It's really absurd when you think about it. In the absence of actual details, let's all just speculate and run that as the story.

By the way, the lockdown was very well done, and staff and students were escorted safely down to parents in the cafeteria after the building was cleared and a suspect arrested off-site.


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 23, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> How the gold standard contributed to the Great Depression.
> 
> Ultimately, the reason why we're not on the Gold Standard and wont ever return to it is that there are simply too many of us, too many humans, walking the face of the Earth, for gold to be a usable basis for currency. There has to be the metal available regardless of using coun or gold certificates. We've replaced our faith in gold with our faith in the system, in each other, which is where the value of any currency in any form is drawn.
> 
> Not to mention the drastic reduction in wages that would have to happen to re-impliment a gold backed currency.


 
Which is all at least partially true. But I never called for a return to the gold standard. I call for a return to commodities backed currencies. 

Many people are advocating a return to currencies based on energy. Still others say it doesn't really matter what they are backed by, as long as they are backed by _something._ In fact, different currencies could be backed by different things, and we could set up an exchange rate between whiskey dollars, gold dollars, and energy dollars. The key is that all those dollars can be exchanged for actual, fungible goods, instead of hopes and dreams.


-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 23, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> TV doesn't have the editorial section. It constantly brings in people not only to editorialize but to react. So there's this constant clash of event reporting and editorializing.


 
While I agree with your general point, I'd change it slightly to say that much of tv "journalism" is _only_ editorial in nature, with very little actual reporting going on.

To some degree, I applaud Fox News for at least being honest about this. They have few if any true news programs, offering instead a constant stream of editorial punditry. My problem with them is when they _are_ offering a "straight" news program, and someone like Shephard Smith looks straight into the camera and lies to the american people. One such example was before the first of the recent corporate bailouts when he looked right into the camera and told the American people that if they didn't support the bailout we'd all go to work next week and not get our paychecks. That was a straight up, bold faced lie. And he didn't give a damn, because he gets _paid __to lie. _At least the pundits only get paid to give their opinions, which may or may not be lies. He's supposed to be a straight newsman. Balderdash.


-Rob


----------

