We're Being Ignored by The Corporate Media.
By Thom Hartmann A...
If you want to know who controls the corporate media, just pay close attention to the issues that they refuse to talk about. A new study by Media Matters shows that over the last six months, there has been almost no coverage of the Trans Pacific Partnership on the major networks. Last week, hundreds of organizations – which represent tens of millions of members - signed a letter to Congress calling on them to stop the TPP. Yet, that letter was ignored by the corporate news media.
Before that, at least 50 groups took part in a massive campaign called StopFastTrack.com, but we didn't hear a word about it on the major networks. The same goes for the fight to restore Net Neutrality, and nation-wide vigils against the Keystone XL pipeline. Millions of people are already involved in these growing campaigns, but the so-called mainstream media continues to ignore any movement that could stand in the way of corporate profits. These networks aren't mainstream, they blatantly refuse to talk about the issues that millions of Americans want covered.
Just like we saw with anti-Iraq War protests... this is what happens when the companies that own our news media also profit off of building bombs. They have a personal interest in downplaying the size of the opposition. We can't depend on corporations that want to profit off a pay-for-play internet to provide honest coverage about Net Neutrality. And, we won't hear about the TPP on networks owned by mufti-national corporations. Millions of people are getting involved and getting active about these issues, and they're going to keep fighting, even if they're ignored by the corporate media.
Comments
#2
I really think Al Franken should not have yielded to his vanity and left Air America to run for Senate. The real power is in the streets with the people not in public office. A politician, in the words of a union organizer and political worker I knew, is "an empty vessel", meaning, they just have what you pour into them. They have to go with the pressure - which either comes from organized people or organized money.
I really don't think Democrats would've won in 2006 or 2008 without Air America. It's what Al Franken was uniquely good at and he would've had more power there than he'd ever have in the Senate.
The right wingers and big business know exactly what they're doing. They put a lot into their media and talk radio.
#3
Content repeated, therefore, deleted.
#4
dr818dr, scapegoating immigrants is not the answer. The reason there's been so much illegal immigration (or, more aptly, so much northward migration of economically distressed people - or economic refugees) to the United States in recent decades is because of the free trade agreements, more specificly, NAFTA. NAFTA caused peasant farmers in Mexico and Guatemala to be evicted from their land by the millions and go seek livlihood elsewhere. Mexico always had a big unemployment problem for which some relief was always provided by some sneaking across the border to the U.S. but after NAFTA the numbers of such refugees from Mexico in the U.S. increased up to four or five times as much as before NAFTA.
In addition, large part of why undocumented immigrants "mess up" our labor situation and other things is because of their illegal status. Because they are afraid to go the proper authorities when they have a problem, when they are abused or exploited - by an employer, a landlord or someone else - they are ripe for such abuse and the divisive strategies of the big business right wing. They are given preference in hiring and that brings everyone's wages and labor standards down, for example. Meaningful immigration reform would take that potential for abuse away and immigrants would be emboldened to demand their rights as workers and human beings along side of the U.S. born.
#5
Kend! We don't need any movie to tell us what fracking does. We have fracking going on on a large scale (and therefore a large, vibrant anti fracking movement) right here in Illinois. We see the stuff happening ourselves. We know and talk to people whose water turns brown and can be lit aflame with a match and so on. A movie isn't phony because it's about something beyond your range of experience (or threatens your vested interests).
Whatever problems come from the mining of materials for solar panels can't be worse than the problems of fossil fuel use which are driving us quickly, perhaps already irrevocably, to mass extinction. When they do become a significant problem you can be sure we'll complain about them. We've never been shy about that. I mean, it's not like we have monetary interests invested in solar, we're only concerned for the well being of the community and the planet.
#6
Kend, I have no problem believing you have a personal stake in Keystone XL. For the rest of us - who also have rights and perhaps more important and basic ones at stake than your monetary gain - Keystone XL is not a source of clean energy but of the most unclean possible, and the pipeline is for export from North America.
That protecting birds hasn't been undertaken by builders of wind turbines doesn't mean it isn't possible or feasible. The well being of birds is not usually a priority unless we make it so.
#7
BillMahr might, in fact, be turning against the poor but we might also be missing the subtlety of his humor. I didn't see the program you're talking about but I can see several funny innuendoes in what you're describing. I mean, he can't be serious when he says money spent on thebasic survival of the elderly is wasted but that they are a powerful voting bloc implies that everybody, especially the poor, would have similar power if they voted en masse.
#8
Mark so why is keystone oil "unclean" .do you mean unclean compared to solar or unclean compared to other oil sources. interesting you live in Mich. you have been enjoying that same low cost oil for over 50 years. Why all the sudden is it unclean.
If America truly wants to go green stop using oil. If there is no market for it it will go away. of course you would not be on this blog as smart phones, computers, and tablets are all made from oil. Try going without those for a week.
#9
Perhaps he learned from mistakes, and progressed into a liberal..
>>> The overall message in lib media today agrees with the right-wing ideology that only those who are of current use to employers/the corporate state (in a country that shipped out a massive chunk of our working class jobs) are real people and deserve to survive.
Don't bother replying, but you have to understand the liberal media is a myth, to have any Discussion based on reality.
#10
Kend, I am in Illinois not Michigan. You can say we've all been benefitting from oil but that is a typically specious canard. We may've benefitted as much or more from an alernate source. Tar sands oil is the dirtiest possible, so much so that we think you Canadians are probably shipping it our way 'cause you don't want it, given your reputation for environmental clenliness. So I guess I mean "other oil sources".
Technology may be overrated and it may not hurt us to get used to less of it although I'm not convinced plastics can't be made from renewables, and certainly, recyclables.
#11
Well said, Aliceinwonderland! I sure don't know who the heck Kend thinks he is going to fool on this blog site. When it comes to those dangerous tar-sands, I don't think anyone agrees with him...and he's not about to convince anyone...so why is he even wasting his time here? Why, he might even be so foolish as to eat a tar-sands sandwich in a vain attempt as showing how safe it is. Like that girlfriend of the owner of that chemical plant on the Ohio River claimed that she brushed her teeth using that polluted water.
#12
Anyway, Kend, to say "If America truly wants to go green stop using oil. If there is no market for it it will go away." is to revert to one of your typically specious canards. For people to "stop using oil" in a society that is completely organized around its use is impossible unless they are either willing to completely drop out of society or unless they have a viable alternative.
Given the integral part of fossil fuels in the functioning of our society a complete restructuring of it would have to take place. That would have to be initiated by some authority or powerful entity, like the government or a large producer of the fuel. It could ultimately be initiated by a people's movement but for it to be a less devestatingly destructive revolution there'd have to be the cooperation of government and business.
I mean, give people an alternative and they'll stop using it with the right amount of public education on the issues and absent forbidding disincentives
#13
Oops! There I go again, unwittingly shuffling the order of these posts with my obsessive-compulsive editing! Once again, my humble apology. (Thought I'd already finished editing within Text Edit, but... oh well...) What follows is my post PD was responding to. - AIW
#14
Kend, your steadfast denial that earthquakes are triggered by fracking is such a frickin' joke. Might even be funny were the stakes not so high. I'm amused by your strident demand that Palin "look at the science and not some phony movie." Well Kend, a few minutes ago I took the bait! I googled fracking & earthquakes and… voila, here we are! What grabbed my eye was an article published by AAAS, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, written by William Ellsworth and titled "Injection-Induced Earthquakes". Gee that was hard; took all of two minutes!
Just so happens that over 100,000 wells have been fracked in recent years. While the largest quakes directly resulting from this practice are a mere 3.6 on the Richter Scale, the wastewater disposal phase of the process entails significantly greater seismic risk.
We're talking about a highly invasive procedure like underground mining, which by design my friend, violates the geological integrity of the earth's surface. Under the "Outlook" heading further down this article, it is asserted that indeed, these injection-induced quakes pose a threat. How can you expect to extract one thing from deep underground (fossil fuel) and inject it with something else, and not have consequences? (Hello.) Just so happens, Kend, that the injection of wastewater into these deep wells can and does cause quakes much larger, such as occurred in Oklahoma between 2011 & 2012. One of these registered a magnitude of 5.6, destroying fourteen houses! Phony movie? I don't think so.
It's not nice to mess with Mother Nature, Kend. A process of extraction that entails the weakening of an existing fault line sure doesn't sound kosher to me! When Mother Nature gets mad, we're toast. With their reckless, greedy plundering of everything, fossil fuel hacks will be the death of us yet... if we don't get nuked to extincion first, with the dumb-ass wars these chicken hawk fascists keep waging all over the world. Anyway, sorry to blow your cover Kend, but Google makes it so easy; like taking candy from a baby! Got any more compelling arguments up your sleeve Fossil Dude? I'm listening… - Aliceinwonderland
#15
Sorry Kend, I argue very nastily but you piss me off. I don't doubt your capable intellect but I think you are dishonest. I hope you are well and happy but I hope you convert to the correct side.
Take care, buddy.
#16
When some members of Congress, The Senate, former Presidential Cabinet members and other noted citizens made repeated appearances on MSNBC urging us to gather large public opinion to force campaign funding reform, the news media refused to carry their words to us so only MSNBC's small audience hold awareness to who those citizens are and their message to us. The last time our nation effected significant political reforms our news media was in the hands of thousands of citizens rather than that of a handful of industrialists who enjoy benefit of unfairly influencing government actions with wealth, and calls for reform were led by news media whose ownership makeup didn't present flagrant conflict of interest!
#17
Yep! And the mind-rotting garbage junk media feeds America's inquiring minds has the public, in its quest for knowledge, eating out of that trough like hungry livestock. Peoples' curiosity is ultimately replaced by a calcified, rigid set of beliefs & opinions, based on nothing but corporate lies. A public thus numbed to passivity becomes reminiscent of those old "Stepford wives" who elevated obedience to virtually an art form.
Remember that old song "Lookin' For Love In All The Wrong Places"? How about a parody swapping the word "love" for "facts"... Hey Weird Al Yankovitch (sp?!), that's the ticket! - AIW
#18
dr818dr on #11 -- It depends on the what is in the immigration reform bill. I assume all the effects that you are implying have to do with the labor supply vs. the employer demand for labor. I think most of the effects that you mention assume an integration bil would increase the labor supply. That is, the bill would loosen the labor market. However, one item in the current bill requires extensive use of e-Verify. In the May 1, 2013 edition of the LA Times they report on e-Verify being used in three states in the South. Employers in those states say the new version of e-Verify works well. They say their only worry is that it will tighten the labor market. A few restaurant owners have noticed that when they start using e-Verify a lot of their employees no longer show up for work.
Also, the building of the fence would be a significant jobs program.
#19
dam -- No stretching required. Per Thom (I know nothing), Aritcle 3, section 2 says the congress can tell SCOTUS what to do.
#20
Hi Mark i hate to be the one to bring you the bad news but since you live in Illinois iI thought I would let you know that Enbridge alone ships 675,000 barrels per day to refineries in Chicago.
Chicap pipeline to Chicago. 360,000 bpd
mustang pipeline to Patoka. 100,000 bpd
woodriver pipeline to Woodriver. 215,000 bpd
so I ask why after 40 years of supplying safe, clean, ethical oil to you right to your state why is it a problem now. It is the same tar sands oil you called uncleanYou need it i think. The answer is simple it is political. Which is really stupid. Shouldn't the decession be made on science. 5 studies all show no environmental problems. All states involved approved it.
And please because I have no idea what you are talking about. Why is the tar/oil sands oil dirty. what have you being told.
#21
Highest office in the land? Is that the CEO of Exxon-Mobil or Goldman Sachs? -- c8
#22
Clean? Not. Safe? Not. Ethical? Not. Sorry Kend, we hate to bear bad news... But ya know, like the sayin' goes my friend, one good turn deserves another! Cheers. - AIW
#23
Hey "chuckle8, thanks for the chuckles!
#24
Good one chuckle. sad thing is you might be right.
#25
Ok Alice why isn't it safe, clean and ethical. What gave you been told. Was it a movie star or singer that educated you.
#26
Kend, Kend, Kend... Earth to Kend! My recent posts speak for themselves. Ditto PD's; ditto Mark Saulys's, ditto-ditto-ditto... you're out of tune with the rest of the chorus! Keeps it entertaining, anyhoo. Tah-tah... - AIW
#27
mm52 and bblr --- Per Article I, Section 8 Militias are to exist to put down insurgency. This seem to be the opposite of what you are saying with regards to a tyrannical govt. -- c8
#28
alice just as I thought you can't give me one reason why the oil sands are unclean. Because they are clean and ethical. Dont get me wrong I understand why you don't want it but just tell the truth. If you really believed that it was dangerous your nation would shut down all imports of Canadian oil wouldn't you. Why don't you.
#29
Re-read my posts, Kend. And to all a good night. - AIW
#30
Tar sands oil extraction produces up to 22% more geenhouse gases than conventional oil extraction. It uses and thus wastes, i.e., renders unusable tremendous amounts of water. It causes deformities and tumors in wildlife and cancer in humans.
Wikipedia says:
A 2012 study by Swart and Weaver estimated that if only the economically viable reserve of 170-billion-barrels (27×109 m3) oil sands was burnt, the global mean temperature would increase by 0.02 to 0.05 °C. If the entire oil-in-place of 1.8 trillion barrels were to be burnt, the predicted global mean temperature increase is 0.24 to 0.50 °C.[92
and:
In January 2013, scientists from Queen's University published a report analyzing lake sediments in the Athabasca region over the past fifty years.[79] They found that levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) had increased as much as 23-fold since bitumen extraction began in the 1960s. Levels of carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic PAHs were substantially higher than guidelines for lake sedimentation set by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment in 1999. The team discovered that the contamination spread farther than previously thought.[80]
The Pembina Institute suggested that the huge investments by many companies in Canadian oil sands leading to increased production results in excess bitumen with no place to store it. It added that by 2022 a month’s output of waste-water could result in a 11-feet deep toxic reservoir the size of New York City’s Central Park [840.01 acres (339.94 ha) (3.399 km²)].[81]
and:
The bulk of the research that defends the oil sands development is done by the Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP). RAMP studies show that deformity rates are normal compared to historical data and the deformity rates in rivers upstream of the oil sands.[100] These results are dubious, however, as RAMP is funded largely by those energy companies with direct interests in the relevant environments. Further, unlike academia, where peer review happens on a per study basis, RAMP does a peer review of the entire organization only once every five years.[101] Hence, RAMP cannot be said to meet widely accepted scientific standards.
My problem with Keystone XL is the same problem I have with all pipelines other than their safety (which may or may not be an issue) and that is its effect on wildlife. There is very little unmolested wildlife left in the United States and I don't think we should do anything to harm it further and ultimately, of course, with mass extinction looming, we have to stop the use of fossil fuels. That you have a lot invested in them personally, Kend, is irrelevant.
I do wish you'd stop spreading misinformation to protect your investments. That's the kind of shit that pisses me off so. It's just unconscionable.
#31
Agreed, Mark. Unconscionably myopic, and selfish. But wait; he'll be back again, telling us we couldn't come up with one reason why it's hazardous or unhealthy or unethical or whatever... - AIW
#32
Very good information, Mark! And I agree that it looks like Kend is merely slinging his disinformation around because he is trying to protect his investments. But he is not convincing anyone. We know that he is using loaded, bought and paid for, propaganda from the fossil fuel companies. Face it, Kend...you made a bad investment! Better stick to properties. By the way, Kend, ever been to Bassano?
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Images of Thom
Thom & Louise at a "private audience" with His Holiness Pope John Paul II at his summer palace, Castle Gandolfo, Italy
From Screwed:
"Hartmann speaks with the straight talking clarity and brilliance of a modern day Tom Paine as he exposes the intentional and systematic destruction of America’s middle class by an alliance of political con artists and outlines a program to restore it. This is Hartmann at his best. Essential reading for those interested in restoring the institution that made America the envy of the world."
From Screwed:
"Once again, Thom Hartmann hits the bull’s eye with a much needed exposé of the so-called ‘free market.’ Anyone concerned about the future of our nation needs to read Screwed now."
From Unequal Protection, 2nd Edition:
"Beneath the success and rise of American enterprise is an untold history that is antithetical to every value Americans hold dear. This is a seminal work, a godsend really, a clear message to every citizen about the need to reform our country, laws, and companies."
Even before cable and internet supplanted mass media in the public's focus, free, broadcast mass media was already ignoring stories that didn't help the corporate agenda and heavily promoting stories that did and spinning and slanting to the big business advantage what it did report. That was partly because privately owned, for profit media is business - and big media is big business - and is thus partial to the business agenda. That's not to mention, of course, that its reason for being is not to inform the public or serve the public in any way really but to serve its customers who are not its consumers but its advertizing client businesses for whom it must market and do PR. Only government intervention of requiring news service by law or a fairness doctrine brings about any public information service at all by media enterprizes.
Add to that media consolidation and monopolization and there is not any independent media remaining or even possible.
What's necessary is to discredit the media in the public's mind. The public still thinks, for the most part, that if they saw it on TV it must be true and that if they didn't it can't be.