Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The TV is the voice of the one percent.

Posted 2 years ago on Nov. 19, 2011, 8:36 a.m. EST by 99time (90)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Have you ever wondered why the TV is so out of touch? And what should be done?

The entire TV, and its supporting media, is the enemy of the 99 percent! The TV is controlled by the one percent. Here is a summary of significant ownership details.

ABC TV was sold by the Reagan FCC to CIA front company Capital Cities. Iran-Contra CIA Chief William Casey was one of the main founders and owners. It later merged with Disney who had his own CIA connections. Example article http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-libmedia.htm

NBC TV was sold to the biggest Gulf War contractor, General Electric, also courtesy of Reagan. GE made tens of billions on the ensuing wars. Despite the recent 'spin-off,' GE still holds a very influential block of NBC stock.

CBS TV went to holding company Loews, then later to Westinghouse, another military contractor. Eventually, it was spun-off, but the ownership and management make-up did not change much. During the 11-17 Direct Action day, CBS Evening News actually dared to report, "the number of protesters is in the hundreds."

TV stations are not the only corrupt sources.

The New York Times has published known false facts and propaganda to push toward every war for 60 years, and issued tiny corrections later. More info http://www.mediabistro.com/articles/cache/a3179.asp

Washington Post and Los Angeles Times did massive firings in the Bush years, to hone the propaganda into a narrower range.

Even PBS has been largely underwritten by the very people who fund the tea party and the notorious right wing families: Koch, Olin, Bradley, Scaife, Coors. See the bias here http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2967 Read about the five families here http://www.pfaw.org/media-center/publications/buying-movement

Wire services feed the media. However, Reuters is headed by a member of the CFR who is also on the boards of an investment company and a drug company.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Glocer

Not many people directly read wire services though. The big media picks up stories that favor its agenda, plays those, and props them to the 'echo chamber.'

The 1996 Telecommunications Act merged most of these companies and entities. Now more than ever, they blare out similar or complimentary propaganda in slightly different flavors. With its unprecedented provisions for automatic deregulation, the 'telecom act' promises to remove merger limits in the future without requiring more action from Congress. See http://benbagdikian.net

The telecom act also allowed most of the radio stations to be purchased by Cumulus, Entercom, and of course, Clear Channel, destroying localism, cutting good jobs, breaking up music formats, and censoring both talk and music.

The major movie studios, music companies, and book companies, along with many major magazines, are under the control of these same media conglomerates.

Bank of America, with the help of a small group of finance companies, holds enough voting stock in the big networks to 'significantly influence' the agenda. Check the public information on institutional holders and you will see the same names over and over. Bank of America is one of them.

Then, there is the coverage. It is hard to miss. Just one example: Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. For more, listen to Counterspin weekly. You will be overwhelmed. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=5

Remember Howard Dean? First, the media ignored him. When that was no longer possible, the media ridiculed him. Then, the media appeared to promote him. Finally, the media doctored and replayed the notorious 'Dean scream' over and over, which destroyed his campaign. See this report issued after the damage was done http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxZVKAzTCT4

The bias of FOX is far too self-evident to think you can change the views of people who buy-in. All this focus on FOX tends to lend credibility to the other networks, to make the other networks appear to be reasonable alternatives, and to limit the discussion. See http://www.newshounds.us

WHAT CAN WE DO?

It is essential to break up media ownership and re-regulate with lower ownership ceilings. This is a content-neutral method of restoring the First Amendment. More owners guarantees more different views.

63 Comments

63 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by seeker (242) 2 years ago

Good post..The corporate media is complicit in war crime cover up and complicit in the the cover up of the greatest fraud known to man..Among other things

[-] 3 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 2 years ago

Wow. Apparently consensus here.

[-] 2 points by fucorporatemedia (451) 2 years ago

Can we get a consensus on Occupying the TV stations?

They are still lying every day.

[-] 2 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 2 years ago

Cancel the cable service. We're paying them to broadcast bullshit. Stop buying.

[-] 1 points by fucorporatemedia (451) 2 years ago

no cable, no TV ...however the country continues to go downhill because millions of Americans are still getting their 'news' broadcast on the public airwaves by corrupt corporate entertainment 'news' readers whose only real job is to distract and protect the 1% and their scams.

The occupy movement is being grossly maligned in the corporate media? Who cares right? Well a lot of people who have not been paying attention the last ten years, have no idea what is going on because they watch corporate news, now believe the same assholes because they have no clue they have been lying to them for so long.

In order to reach the entire 99%, we must shut down the 1%'s propaganda, the corporate media.

[-] 5 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 2 years ago

Kill your television

[-] 3 points by fucorporatemedia (451) 2 years ago

yes, I agree, but we are not the problem.

It is all the other people watching TV that are impossible to communicate with because they are so dumbed down and brainwashed that are the problem.

So really, we need to kill their televisions.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

I cancelled my cable a few months ago. It really was offering no benefit to me, and I don't miss it at all. If there's a show that I really want to watch, I can buy it on DVD and watch it sans commercials.

I know some people who are glued to their TVs with either hollow reality programming, or playing video games all day. It would be nice if these people had more balance in their lives. These are the people that we need to reach. We need them to "wake up" and get them out to vote, to participate, to do SOMETHING!

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 2 years ago

Or better yet. Just download it.

[-] 2 points by usernameah (36) 2 years ago

Right you are.

[-] 4 points by fucorporatemedia (451) 2 years ago

The Occupy movement is the perfect vehicle for taking the media back by using our numbers to surround the TV stations and demand they tell the truth, about our demands, about the illegal foreclosures, about the speculating, Social Security and the real drain on our economy (PENTAGON)....

In Egypt they surrounded the stations and it worked!

"Amin refused to come into work for several days as the protests escalated; in that time her channel broadcast pre-recorded travel programmes about Red Sea holiday towns and made only occasional references to the massive anti-government uprising sweeping the country, normally by focusing on isolated pro-Mubarak supporters.

"You can't have a revolution in your own country and air a story about a beach resort," she said. "It was ridiculous. Then I saw the Molotov cocktails being thrown at pro-change demonstrators, the violence of the horsemen, the trucks that were running protesters over. For me, that was the breaking point."

Amin tendered her resignation, the first of many inside the state media apparatus who would follow suit as the protests continued. "I realised then that I had to choose which side I was on. And I realised I couldn't be the mouthpiece of a regime that massacres its own people; that was a line I couldn't cross."

This week state TV channels have begun to shift the tone of their coverage, offering air time to protesters and in some cases hailing the occupation of Tahrir square as a positive step. On Monday state-run Al-Ahram – the Middle East's biggest daily newspaper – carried a frontpage editorial praising the "nobility" of the revolution, though it stopped short of calling for the president to step down.

"There's domestic pressure from protesters and outside pressure from Washington to liberalise editorial control, and that's what we're now seeing," claimed Amin. "Nobody inside Maspero is really happy about the government's response to the protests, they're just following orders."

[-] -2 points by pinker (586) 2 years ago

And there is this. You can search news items by date. Do a search from 1998-2003 of social security and drain on economy - the news has BEEN reporting this stuff and discussing it. You know these things because they were in the news. We have a free press in the US.

[-] -2 points by pinker (586) 2 years ago

The stations in Egypt are state run! There's a large difference here. The government can't tell news stations what or how to report here as they could in Egypt. It's a totally different situation.

Also, here is just one example from a year ago of the media ALREADY covering the illegal foreclosures. How do you think people knew about this stuff when OWS began? Because it was in the news!

www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130530446

[-] 3 points by aeturnus (231) from Robbinsville, NC 2 years ago

Actually, not much of a difference here. Advertising can tell news stations what to report and how to report it. Advertising is a form of censorship. It is more or less corporate censorship. Most forms of authoritarian institutions draw heavily on the creation of an enemy. Advertisers are not going to readily permit much of the news putting down corporations. So the news turns to the government as the source of most of the nation's problems.

[-] 2 points by fucorporatemedia (451) 2 years ago

the media is on our public airwaves and in order to have a license from the FCC they must prove they serve the public interest, not their own private interests.

It seems pretty easy to prove at this time, that they do not serve the public interest, so we can appeal to the FCC to have their license repealed.

If you think the corporate media has been covering the news properly, then you haven't been paying attention.

[-] -1 points by pinker (586) 2 years ago

And yet another person uses that now trite expression, "You're not paying attention." Drink coke. Just do it. You're not paying attention. And propaganda is propaganda.

Go ahead. Storm the stations. How much you want to bet it'll be on TV - not a travel show. Your fight is not the same as in Egypt.

[-] 2 points by fucorporatemedia (451) 2 years ago

If you were reading the news on the net, you would realize just how much the corporate media not only leaves out, but completely makes up to support whatever corporate candidate is in office.

With Bush, the lied right along with him about the fake evidence of WMD in Iraq. Now they are covering up the whole mess calling it success.

With Obama, they pretend that he is attempting to fix the economy (Which Bushco screwed up but they won't admit that) meanwhile all are lying about the real cause of our deficit (hint: not social security, medicare, and welfare but you wouldn't know that because you trust the corporate media)

[-] 1 points by 99time (90) 2 years ago

Lately, CBS has been reporting about 60,000 Iraqis killed from the 2003 ESCALATION of the 20 year war to its supposed end.

Is CBS not aware?

Iraq Body Count, Documented deaths from violence 104,245 -- 113,895 (as of today)

This number is an actual count of verified or corroborated reports of deaths due to the 2003 escalation. Therefore, it represents an actual number in the population and a minimum number of deaths.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org

Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey

"We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been 654 965 (392 979—942 636) excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2·5% of the population in the study area. Of post-invasion deaths, 601 027 (426 369—793 663) were due to violence, the most common cause being gunfire." This study was later updated to estimate over one million Iraq deaths.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2806%2969491-9/abstract

A Million Iraqi Dead?

"Opinion Research Business (ORB), released a poll finding that 1.2 million Iraqis had been killed violently since the U.S. invasion. Given this poll's close agreement with Just Foreign Policy's extrapolation of the Johns Hopkins study (the Just Foreign Policy estimate is well within the margin of error of the ORB estimate), this provides compelling evidence that more than a million Iraqis have died."

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3321

Cancer rate in Fallujah worse than Hiroshima

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/jul2010/fall-j23.shtml

"According to the authors of a new study, 'Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005–2009,' the people of Fallujah are experiencing higher rates of cancer, leukemia, infant mortality, and sexual mutations than those recorded among survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the years after those Japanese cities were incinerated by US atomic bomb strikes in 1945."

The study is here http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/7/2828/pdf

Where does CBS get the 60,000 number from??

[-] 2 points by fucorporatemedia (451) 2 years ago

Thanks for the info. Lancet showed over one million Iraqis had been killed as of numbers recorded years ago.

We need to storm these assholes TV stations and stop the lies....

Occupy Corporate Media! Occupy Movement Storms Gingrich Event on LIVE TV http://getsmartnews.com/news/317468

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yes a fabulously effective tool for distraction, misinformation, manipulation, and twisting truth. Also good for promoting false concerns or denying real concerns.

Almost forgot. Very useful to mesmerize people with a continuous and escalating number of commercial bombardments to tell them exactly why they are having a bad sex life and that they can make the universe full of women or men ecstatically obsessed with them if they by Viagra or something similar. Feed the need that self-worth depends on getting the newest, biggest, and bestest ( intentional ) products just now available to the public.

[-] 2 points by NewEnglandPatriot (916) from Dartmouth, MA 2 years ago

True mind control at its finest. I have witnessed it actually work. A flashy domino' s ad 20 minutes later pizza. Some time flashing a cold drink makes people thirsty or have to use the bathroom. It is true mind control via alpha-wave hypnosis

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I know I know. Studies show that your mind shuts down to an alpha level state shortly after becoming engrossed in a program ( just enough happening there to keep from being declared brain dead ). But even worse that this level of brain activity is highly susceptible to suggestion.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

But it does make me wonder why they cycle into season repeats so often. That is seriously irritating . Is it message reinforcement ? Before starting a new cycle?

Perhaps I shouldn't mention that as I may be blowing an unforeseen public safety valve. Being seriously annoyed at the increasing frequency of repeats may be the only thing saving many an individual from complete manipulation.

As well as the increasing pace/number of commercials in their bombardment.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

LOL, I remember when NickJr ran the same Blues Clues episodes for an entire week. They announced that this was repeat #2-5, with the announcer saying that this "improves learning."

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

If you have the time you might find this interesting.

Disturbing!!

No one should watch this unless...unless they know how to think for themselves and enjoy thinking!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezTIYd5UFRY

[-] 1 points by 99time (90) 2 years ago

DKA, here's a more inside source on the foundation conspiracy. Meet Norman Dodd, who ran the Reece Commission in 1953. If your time is very limited, start it 14 minutes in! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUYCBfmIcHM

You can also verify the information by searching "Reece Commission."

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

I'll check it out later. Thanks!

[-] 1 points by NewEnglandPatriot (916) from Dartmouth, MA 2 years ago

At least you and a few others understand, but many still need to reload their "software" from within and start over from there. You seem to be independent. I had to use a DVR to prove this to friends, that they were thirsty or wanted pizza from the TV. They denied, I rewound and showed them where the suggestion controlled them. It freaked them out and they come to me for advice all the time. I unlocked so many minds and proved so much some are afraid of me. I show they are afraid of themselves because they "need" this and became dependent upon it. They rely on it. I could walk away from everything , I am about to. I do not need the grid. What about the "text zombies" ? So many are glued to the TV, the phone, etc have no clue how influenced they are from all sources of distraction and control. It is sort of entertaining.

[-] 1 points by 99time (90) 2 years ago

NewEnglandPatriot, watch Derren Brown run a scam upon advertising experts. This is priceless. Pay close attention! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyQjr1YL0zg

[-] 1 points by 99time (90) 2 years ago

Here's a great documentary about the history of modern mind control. CENTURY OF THE SELF http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyPzGUsYyKM

[-] 1 points by usernameah (36) 2 years ago

Yeah, make people feel horrible about themselves, make them lose any self-respect and self-confidence they might have had to begin with, isolate them, make them distrust others. Then the corporations can swoop in with their miracle drugs and cures and make profit off their doubts.

[-] 4 points by Alfons (4) from Millbrook, NY 2 years ago

Very good, could not agree more.

[-] 3 points by rockyracoon2 (276) 2 years ago

great post, thank you!

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Exactly. Messaging pumped into every americans heads multiple times a day.

TV is the easiest way to control the population.

[-] 2 points by nickhowdy (1104) 2 years ago

Has anyone noticed all the happy economic talk? Dow up 330..! Jobs coming Back! Unemployment Lower!

I had to watch ABC's George Snuffleupagus (whateva) lie his ass off last night..What a bunch of crap!

[-] 2 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

Very true !

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (4024) 2 years ago

Hi 99Time, Good post. Remember during the Cold War there was Radio Free Europe? We need Radio Free USA.

[-] 2 points by anonymousoccupy (23) 2 years ago

What a great post here! Thanks for the information, however I wish you would have gone into the specifics on how many media owners existed in the 80's versus what is owned now by only 6. I think OWS needs to move on this media situation. An educated public would greatly help OWS build in numbers. Majority I doubt know the ownership of the news media is such a SMALL number. They can't grasp the fact it is corporate controlled media which is fascist state media. It is time to break down the walls. Thank you for this post!

[-] 2 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

Don't forget the more subtle effect it has by inducing alpha wave brain patterns.

For those unfamiliar: http://www.causeof.org/brainwaves.htm

[-] 2 points by bigbangbilly (594) 2 years ago

The thing I don't like about tv is that there is no control and changing the channels is an illusion of control as the cards are dealt already. Sorta reminds me of the probability for cards as it the cards are not random once dealt or after shuffling and the randomness is only in your head as you are not allowed to know the certainty.

With youtube I get to choose.

Sorry about making a rambling for my metaphor.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (17973) 2 years ago

For Those Who've Been Asleep (all their lives?) ! ...

ABCNNBCBS / (Lame) FUX SNEWzzz et al = Corporate Owned and ConTROLLed Main Stream Media ; there to programme, propagandise and 'mind manage' YOU !!

Get Fuckin' Real !!!

iYa Basta! ; iViva Los Indignados! ; iViva Los 99%!

[-] 0 points by NewEnglandPatriot (916) from Dartmouth, MA 2 years ago

Good TROLL emBEDding......

[-] 2 points by KVNLGN (154) 2 years ago

well done ! very insightful. what is the blue print for starting a media company for the ows movement ?

[-] 1 points by Samcitt (136) 2 years ago

I forget, does OWS have its own television station on Youtube at all which runs news reports from an OWS perspective for much of the day or for 24 hours a day?

[-] 1 points by simplesimon (121) 2 years ago

If TV is the voice of the 1 percent, why do so many 99%ers watch Jerry Springer?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Disturbing!!

No one should watch this unless...unless they know how to think for themselves and enjoy thinking!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezTIYd5UFRY

[-] 1 points by stuartchase (861) 2 years ago

The Revolution has a new theme song!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L-GOHa5-YQ

http://occupywallst.org/forum/in-the-name-of-allah/

The Revolution starts here!

[-] 1 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by NewEnglandPatriot (916) from Dartmouth, MA 2 years ago

The Media uses silent sound spectrum and pixel blanking techniques to keep people tuned in and virtually programmed. If you bite onto a news channel you almost get sucked in. This has been proven, boycott the TV. period. Demand they do what they did to MA Bell and break the networks down into local stations carrying affiliate programs, but stick to local control no top down control. It is a monopoly and be broken up under anti trust laws.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 2 years ago

We've known that for a really long time...

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

The TV controls the 99%. How else would you explaing this incredibly insane population?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Or you could just turn it off....

[-] 0 points by pinker (586) 2 years ago

Lies and propaganda. The CBS news reported in the 1000s in NYC on Nov 17, not 100s as you say Read the first line:

www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57326595/occupy-clashes-on-wall-street-in-day-of-action/

Getting info from anonymous posters on forums is just as dangerous as listening to Fox News. Aways check facts and consider the source, no matter the source.

Let me also point out that Time Mag included quite a bit about OWS when naming protestors as the person of the year.

What you are suggesting at the end is socialist style run news. Screw that.

[-] 1 points by 99time (90) 2 years ago

"THE NUMBER OF PROTESTERS IS IN THE HUNDREDS," Jim Axelrod, CBS Evening News, Thursday, November 17, 2011.

There are two major aspects of media analysis -- media bias and media structure. Bias is a test to compare media reporting to the real world, among other things; whereas, structure explains why there is so much bias. The above post is primarily about structure.

Nevertheless, a few examples of bias are included, including the Jim Axelrod quote, which was recent, outrageous, and relevant to OWS. There was Jim Axelrod, standing near Foley's Square in the middle of the growing Historic Day of Action for the 99%, http://occupywallst.org/article/november-17-historic-day-action-99, literally claiming that the "number of protesters is in the hundreds."

It is precisely the absurdity of this Jim Axelrod statement that inspires the above objection apparently claiming that the post includes "lies and propaganda." The objection then proceeds to make a generalized blanket assault on people who would post things on the internet. This appears to be a weakly veiled attempt to support 'official' one-percent run sources like CBS News over the 99 percent. Interestingly, the objection is made to one illustrative example and not to the bulk of the post, which was actually about the corporate structure of the media.

How do you verify or discredit the accuracy of the quote?

Find the video. I searched at youtube for the video, but did not find it. If anyone has this important example of CBS News bias, please post it to youtube and link here!

Find the original report or the transcript. Although CBS News maintains archives of full reports, I could not find either the video or a transcript for the date in question. CBS News only makes available selected archives, and this does not appear to be one of them. I searched the free version of LexisNexis but did not find it there either.

Find corroboration. I searched the internet for the exact quote, in quotes, and produced the following report from the Chronicle of Higher Education http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/news-follies-once-more-with-distortion/41471 (edit: corrected publication name)

"Jim Axelrod, said this ... 'The main event is tonight a rally scheduled for the Brooklyn Bridge, which, of course, would disrupt rush hour. Again, organizers are talking about tens of thousands of protesters, however so far, Scott [Pelley], the number of protesters is in the hundreds.'" Note that this OWS post was published before the Chronicle article.

Find an admission or failure to deny. This exchange comes from http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=310853872260555&id=191597667519510

As a French journalist living in NY, I was astounded by your comment on the CBS Evening News tonight. "Organizers are talking about tens of thousands of protesters, so far the numbers are in the hundreds". Let's skip the fact that while you were on air 5000 were already gathering on Foley Square. More seriously, it is not the organizers who talked about tens of thousands, it is City Hall. A deputy mayor on wednesday to be accurate, in an unashamed spin maneuver that reminded me of the statist propaganda of my native France. You leake the very high (and very unlikely) estimate, then you declare that the protesters were far less numerous than expected. That's what Mayor Bloomberg said Thursday afternoon. Fair enough. This is his role. Not a reporter's. I don't like or dislike this Occupy movement. I just love facts and the way they are usually reported by the US Media. Usually, but apparently not always.

mr. cadier -- thanks for your comments. as i wrote to mr. brothers, i was out all day with the protesters and found a discrepancy between what they promised, and what was delivered. i've worked hard to try to present the movement objectively to our viewers, and thursday was no exception. thanks for the time you spent to share your thoughts with me. i stand by our reporting and feel we gave a fair sense to our viewers of what happened in nyc thursday re: OWS. all the best, ja

The second paragraph comes from Jim Axelrod. Directly presented with a question about his claim that "hundreds" were protesting, he sidesteps it rather than denies it. Given the absurdity of the statement, he has every reason to deny it if not true. But he cannot. A video will eventually emerge. The above comment maker can deny it, but Jim Axelrod would not!

How not to debunk or discredit a quote.

You cannot post a single CBS News article from online and assume that it covers everything ever said on the subject at CBS News. That is more absurd than the comment claiming there were "hundreds" in Foleys Square. You cannot be sure that a quote does not exist on the internet unless you search for it in quotes. You cannot assume that CBS online reports are exact matches to what is said on TV. You cannot assume that the quote may have involved "other cities." You should not assume that things you could not verify or debunk are "lies and propaganda."

You should also understand the word "socialism." There is nothing in the idea of breaking up the media that remotely resembles socialism.

This comment was edited to deal with various 'pinker' objections.

[-] -1 points by pinker (586) 2 years ago

Okay. Do you have a link to it? Or are you sure they weren't talking about other cities on the same day which DID have protestors in the 100s. And that's not the Houston Chronicle.

[-] -1 points by pinker (586) 2 years ago

I have given you the direct link to the CBS coverage from that day. What needs to be corroborated?

Read my posts above too. You would not know about any of these problems in the US without the media. NPR, which I listen to every day on my way home, has been reporting on all of your issues, unemployment, foreclosures, bank fraud in lending, etc ad nauseum for a couple of years. Their pieces have been heartbreaking. How do you think people are aware of these issues - from forums?

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by TH3W01F (180) from Ottawa, ON 2 years ago

It's called "projection".

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (17973) 2 years ago

a) Because in The U$A, "conservatives" = Way To The Right of All Else In Most Other Countries,

b) Because "complaining" is what "conservatives" like to do &

c) Because They are deluded by the superficial myth of 'The Liberal Media Bias'.

The "ABCNNBCBS / (Lame)FUX SNEWzzz" TV News Continuum prevalent in the U$A, is A Corporate Propaganda & Mind-Management Machine - 'sans pareil' !

veritas vos liberabit ...