Jump to content

The Most Ignored Stories By The Media


Rammer

Recommended Posts

What are your 'Most Ignored Stories' by the Media???

They can be ignored, underreported, or flat out covered up.

(By the way, I'm an independant who has no respect for either party)

Here are some of mine in no particular order:

1) I'm still stunned after 5 years, that a respected man like Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill can publicly state on '60 Minutes' that Bush discussed attacking Iraq 8 months BEFORE 9/11...and yet everyone has ignored him.

2) Most dieticians, including 'Nutrition By Natalie'(Youtube), will tell you that soft drinks are the absolute WORST food that you can put into your body. Worse than hotdogs, doughnuts, or even french fries. This liquid candy is being covered up like cigarettes were in the 50's. Because it is such an incredible moneymaker and sponsor, Coke & Pepsi have managed to maintain a false image of healthy normalcy. It should be banned by the FDA, but the corruption at the FDA is a whole other story.

3) The Banksters story is just now coming to light in the media...barely. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley completely controlled oil prices last summer by false electronic manipulation(via Enron).

Former GOLDMAN SACHS employees head/headed:

The New York Stock Exchange(Niederauer)Wants to keep derivatives.

The World Bank(Zoellick)Ever wonder where that 'green' talk started?

The U.S. Treasury Department (Paulson/under Bush)This man is an idiot.

The White House chief of Staff(Bolten/under Bush)

Citigroup(Rubin)Left 01/09/09....where will he go?

Merrill Lynch(Thain)Ousted for his million dollar office bathroom.

Under Secretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs(Reuben Jeffery)

Commodity Futures Trading Commission head/Obama(Gary Gensler)Corruption is the motto at CFTC.

Interim Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability-(Kashari)Controls TARP handouts.

Governor of New Jersey(Corzine)

Chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board(Friedman)

Treasury Chief of Staff (Mark Patterson)So much for Obama's 'no lobbyists' talk.

President of the New York Fed(William Dudley)Just appointed.

4) Prior to 1980, Afghanistan hardly had any poppys. Then the CIA moved in and made Afghanistan the heroin capital of the world. 90% of the world's heroin & opium comes from Afghanistan thanks to the CIA. You won't believe what they do with dead soldier's bodies...you can read that yourself.

5) John Perkins wrote a book called 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman'. It detailed the deceit of the World Bank, the CIA, and the 'Corporatocracy' of how the world works. We make loans to third world countries which they can't pay back, then we take over their natural resources.

First, the Economic Hitman(Perkins) makes an 'offer you can't refuse'.

If the leader can't be corrupted, he is killed by a Jackal(CIA).

If the leader can't be killed, the military is sent in(Iraq).

6) The 'Mass Media' is controlled by only a few conglomerate organizations: General Electric, Time Warner, Viacom, News Corp., Walt Disney, CBS, Sony, and a few smaller companies. It's pretty obvious why you don't hear much about this.

7) UBS recently closed 19,000 American accounts in Switzerland, which the IRS said were illegally hiding funds. I'm sure you know about Swiss bank accounts. These 19,000 people are amongst the wealthiest people in the world. Not a peep from the mass media.

I'm sure you have many more ignored stories...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 154
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Rammer, if you can elaborate and show multiple independant links on JUST the last one , I will back you on all the others.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/business...ref=todayspaper

http://www.newser.com/story/47468/ubs-clos...-irs-probe.html

----

The whole point of my post is that these stories are NOT covered like the Caylee Anthony case is.

The elite want you to be misdirected, entertained, and not paying attention to their frauds.

Disbelievers need to learn about Google & Youtube.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you guys really think that the media tells you everything going on?

"The media" does report everything for the same reason that any other business doesn't do everything -- time and money constraints. People like to imagine "the media" as a single coordinated organization like the Army or the CIA, but it isn't. It's just a bunch of people just like you who are plugging away each day at their jobs and just want to go home and be with their kids. If "the media" was half as well financed and coordinated as the conspiracy theorists want to believe then it would be a much better place to work in than it really is.

There is no way that you or anyone else can know if "the media" is telling "everything" because it's not possible to consume "everything." With thousands of networks, tens of thousands of TV stations, hundreds of thousands of radio stations, and an equal number of newspapers around the world there is no way for any individual or group to accurately claim that "the media" isn't reporting on something. A more accurate statement would be "the media I watch hasn't reported..." or "this certain subset of mediums that I tune into at a particular time of the day hasn't reported..."

And that no one corrupt is withholding?

Lots of people withhold lots of things. I think the question is vague.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/business...ref=todayspaper

http://www.newser.com/story/47468/ubs-clos...-irs-probe.html

----

The whole point of my post is that these stories are NOT covered like the Caylee Anthony case is.

The elite want you to be misdirected, entertained, and not paying attention to their frauds.

Disbelievers need to learn about Google & Youtube.

Media corporations care about what people will watch. They are not in the business of educating you and they are not in the business of providing oversight of government. They are in the business of selling advertisements. As a byproduct of selling advertisements, they entertain people. They don't care that you're entertained or that you take their news service so seriously that you'd be willing to propose some kind of conspiracy theory as to why they aren't engaging in journalism; they care that you see the ads.

There is no conspiracy; there is only someone that does not understand the difference between journalism and an effective vehicle for advertisements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/business...ref=todayspaper

http://www.newser.com/story/47468/ubs-clos...-irs-probe.html

----

The whole point of my post is that these stories are NOT covered like the Caylee Anthony case is.

The elite want you to be misdirected, entertained, and not paying attention to their frauds.

Disbelievers need to learn about Google & Youtube.

So 19,000 out of 350 million upsets your delicate sensibilities ? Try combining the amount of people who will be getting a refund check this year and have NEVER paid taxes on ANYTHING, and then come cry to me about 19,000 who were smart enough to use USB until they caved. You should publish a link about the amount of clientel and credibility that USB is gonna lose because of this.

Like I said, I'll back you up that the stories are out there, on that I will agree.

I can't stand Nancy Grace either sometimes, but her coverage of a MISSING then MURDERED 3yr. old girl is less important to YOU, than a bunch of fatcats who hide money ? Your priorities are seriously out of whack pal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't stand Nancy Grace either sometimes, but her coverage of a MISSING then MURDERED 3yr. old girl is less important to YOU, than a bunch of fatcats who hide money ? Your priorities are seriously out of whack pal.

I guess my priorities are out of whack. Three-year-old girls die every day and I don't care. If I (honestly) even cared one iota when three-year-old girls die or when parents murder their kids, I'd become completely non-functional. The death of children and crappy parents are a chronic condition of society; they're problems that can't be fixed. It is healthier not to care.

When law and law enforcement is so screwed up that people have to skirt the rules by actively hiding money, I care about that; the broader repercussions will affect many more people possibly including myself at some point in time. That merits my attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So 19,000 out of 350 million upsets your delicate sensibilities ? Try combining the amount of people who will be getting a refund check this year and have NEVER paid taxes on ANYTHING, and then come cry to me about 19,000 who were smart enough to use USB until they caved. You should publish a link about the amount of clientel and credibility that USB is gonna lose because of this.

Like I said, I'll back you up that the stories are out there, on that I will agree.

I can't stand Nancy Grace either sometimes, but her coverage of a MISSING then MURDERED 3yr. old girl is less important to YOU, than a bunch of fatcats who hide money ? Your priorities are seriously out of whack pal.

It's not USB, it's UBS.

These aren't 19,000 Joe Blows. These are 19,000 of the RICHEST Americans.

The article stated 'Prosecutors contend that UBS helped wealthy Americans hide about $18 billion, thereby evading taxes of $300 million each year.'

$18,000,000,000 divided by 19,000 = $947,368 average amount per account

From the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: 'A child goes missing every 40 seconds in the U.S, over 2,100 per day.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The media" does report everything for the same reason that any other business doesn't do everything -- time and money constraints. People like to imagine "the media" as a single coordinated organization like the Army or the CIA, but it isn't. It's just a bunch of people just like you who are plugging away each day at their jobs and just want to go home and be with their kids. If "the media" was half as well financed and coordinated as the conspiracy theorists want to believe then it would be a much better place to work in than it really is.

There is no way that you or anyone else can know if "the media" is telling "everything" because it's not possible to consume "everything." With thousands of networks, tens of thousands of TV stations, hundreds of thousands of radio stations, and an equal number of newspapers around the world there is no way for any individual or group to accurately claim that "the media" isn't reporting on something. A more accurate statement would be "the media I watch hasn't reported..." or "this certain subset of mediums that I tune into at a particular time of the day hasn't reported..."

Lots of people withhold lots of things. I think the question is vague.

Rupert Murdoch, as an example, is the 47th richest person in America.

He owns News Corp...a fitting name. Murdoch owns everything from television(like FOX Broadcasting) to newspapers(like The Wall Street Journal & The New York Post) to magazines (like TVGuide) to even cyperspace(like Myspace). He not only owns American media, but worldwide media, too.

Here is just a partial list of his gigantic holdings:

http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i4world.htm

P.S. - Murdoch caught the 'Green' bug in May of 2007....and you've been deluged with Green bullcrap ever since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Media corporations care about what people will watch. They are not in the business of educating you and they are not in the business of providing oversight of government. They are in the business of selling advertisements. As a byproduct of selling advertisements, they entertain people. They don't care that you're entertained or that you take their news service so seriously that you'd be willing to propose some kind of conspiracy theory as to why they aren't engaging in journalism; they care that you see the ads.

There is no conspiracy; there is only someone that does not understand the difference between journalism and an effective vehicle for advertisements.

This pretty much sums it up. The "media" are not moral organizations out to make sure evil is thwarted and people are well-informed, they have to air the crap that people want to see - otherwise no one watches and they go out of business. Not what they need to see. And I think you (OP) would be very wrong to assume that people in general are smart enough to even understand the complicated issues that are being "hid" from them. They just don't care, they want to work 8-5, save up for going to Disneyworld every 3 years, and eat at Chili's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not USB, it's UBS.

These aren't 19,000 Joe Blows. These are 19,000 of the RICHEST Americans.

The article stated 'Prosecutors contend that UBS helped wealthy Americans hide about $18 billion, thereby evading taxes of $300 million each year.'

$18,000,000,000 divided by 19,000 = $947,368 average amount per account

From the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: 'A child goes missing every 40 seconds in the U.S, over 2,100 per day.'

You and Niche are -------------- !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another one...

Did you know?: The United States is only 5% of the world's population, but we use 80% of the world's pharmaceutical drugs. You'd think we'd live longer, yet we are 41st on the world's longevity list.

Did you know?: Only two countries can directly advertise drugs to consumers...New Zealand and the United States. It's illegal everywhere else. In 2004, they spent more money on drug advertisements(4 billion)than they did on research and developement! Drugs are a racket. Drugs are poisonous.

And speak of the devil, look what came out this morning!:

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/...0090204?sp=true

Always follow the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Media corporations care about what people will watch. They are not in the business of educating you and they are not in the business of providing oversight of government. They are in the business of selling advertisements. As a byproduct of selling advertisements, they entertain people. They don't care that you're entertained or that you take their news service so seriously that you'd be willing to propose some kind of conspiracy theory as to why they aren't engaging in journalism; they care that you see the ads.

There is no conspiracy; there is only someone that does not understand the difference between journalism and an effective vehicle for advertisements.

Thank you, Niche. I couldn't have said it better myself.

It wasn't always this way. Things started to go to Hell in the 80's due to two factors: Lack of government oversight, and Wall Street.

What happened was the large (and small) media companies, specifically broadcasters, lost their independence. NBC got bought by RCA. ABC got bought by Capital Cities. CBS got bought by Westinghouse. Suddenly the news managers in those organizations were told not to worry about what the viewers and listeners think of the content anymore. Their primary concern was keeping the stock price up so the big investment houses on Wall Street would be happy.

What made it worse was the Reagan-era philosophy (which continued through two Bush and one Clinton administration to this day) that the government should be hands-off when it comes to broadcast content. I'm not trying to make this political, but if the Obama administration wants to do one single thing that will have the most positive long-term impact on the nation, it would be to more closely monitor and regulate broadcasting. I'm not saying only Obama can do it. He just happens to be the person in the White House at this particular moment in time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You and Niche are -------------- !!!

:lol: I wish I knew what it was that sevfiv deleted.

For the record, I think that many of the stories that he has brought up are based on and report factual data, but that people read too far into them or automatically assume that the facts as they are are bad (which is ironic because he's the one complaining about poor journalism).

Examples.

Did you know?: The United States is only 5% of the world's population, but we use 80% of the world's pharmaceutical drugs. You'd think we'd live longer, yet we are 41st on the world's longevity list.

Americans also thoroughly enjoy a really unhealthy diet. My last seven meals were:

*1 Kroger-brand frozen pizza w/self-rising crust (which turned out to be awful, btw)

*1 whole casserole dish of Tuna Helper

*2 pcs fried fish and 12 hushpuppies from Long John Silvers

*1 ham and cheese sandwich slathered with mayo

*1 catfish steak drowned in salty fish sauce in clay pot, served with rice from Pho 20; followed up with a large Oreo Sonic Blast

*1 gargantuan t-bone steak, cooked rare, still bloody

*1 BLT with a fried egg on top of the bacon and a slice of melted cheese on top of the egg and with mayo on each slice of bread; 2 blueberry muffins on the side

I regret nothing. I can be quite a hedonist and I recognize that there are long-term consequences for that. And if I can treat those consequences with relatively expensive and perhaps questionably-effective drugs as opposed to invastive or time-consuming procedures or perhaps even by just changing my lifestyle, then even if those drugs may some unpleasant side effects, that's still preferable to the discomfort of a procedure or a change to my lifestyle. I'll probably shave off some number of years from my life and I'm OK with that because I will have enjoyed it.

And I'm perfectly OK with paying the high prices for American pharmaceuticals because if Americans didn't pay for it so that the world could mooch off of our advances, there'd be no pharmaceutical R&D at all.

EDIT: And I may be more aware of and open with what I'm doing to myself than most Americans would be willing to admit, but I think that most Americans have similar preferences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Niche. I couldn't have said it better myself.

It wasn't always this way. Things started to go to Hell in the 80's due to two factors: Lack of government oversight, and Wall Street.

Hmm, seems I've heard these two culprits mentioned in some other catastrophes recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What made it worse was the Reagan-era philosophy (which continued through two Bush and one Clinton administration to this day) that the government should be hands-off when it comes to broadcast content. I'm not trying to make this political, but if the Obama administration wants to do one single thing that will have the most positive long-term impact on the nation, it would be to more closely monitor and regulate broadcasting. I'm not saying only Obama can do it. He just happens to be the person in the White House at this particular moment in time.

I tend to believe that it had much more to do with the introduction of Fox, multilingual broadcast networks, cable television, and finally the internet. As each new media was introduced and as the number of channels multiplied, each channel airing content aggressively aimed at undermining the dominance of the old three-network regime, the old regime had to change or die off.

There are huge differences between how firms act in a triopoly as opposed to how they act when the industry becomes mature and highly competitive. This same process happened in radio before that, and in newspapers before that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, seems I've heard these two culprits mentioned in some other catastrophes recently.

The lack of government oversight and the massive (and mistaken) infusion of capital to telecommunications companies by Wall Street in the late 90's are what makes the internet as we know it today possible.

I'm actually kind of surprised to see that you would imply that government should be more hands-on with media. The old regime covered up quite a few skeletons in the government's closet back when. I would think that the prospect of more government influence over content has to be scary to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lack of government oversight and the massive (and mistaken) infusion of capital to telecommunications companies by Wall Street in the late 90's are what makes the internet as we know it today possible.

I'm actually kind of surprised to see that you would imply that government should be more hands-on with media. The old regime covered up quite a few skeletons in the government's closet back when. I would think that the prospect of more government influence over content has to be scary to you.

You would be correct. While I made light of the fact that lack of government oversight and Wall Street have received a lot of attention lately, the apparent implication that I endorse oversight of the media is wholly unintended. Even fact challenged blowhards like Rush Limbaugh should not be censored or regulated. That Limbaugh is on the air is not a problem. That 10 million people may listen to him in a given week, however, might be. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lack of government oversight and the massive (and mistaken) infusion of capital to telecommunications companies by Wall Street in the late 90's are what makes the internet as we know it today possible.

We're not talking about telecom companies and those that created the internet like Cisco, AT&T, MCI, Yahoo!, AOL, etc... We're talking about media companies as in content providers like ABC, CBS, Gannett, etc...

Oh, and I found another one of these, so I'm going to post it here.

web.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You would be correct. While I made light of the fact that lack of government oversight and Wall Street have received a lot of attention lately, the apparent implication that I endorse oversight of the media is wholly unintended. Even fact challenged blowhards like Rush Limbaugh should not be censored or regulated. That Limbaugh is on the air is not a problem. That 10 million people may listen to him in a given week, however, might be. ;)

Exactly. I'm not suggesting that Rush or Al Franken or whomever be censored. What I am saying is that the government should reinstate and actually enforce rules that require broadcasters and other non-print media companies to actually serve the public and the communities they're licensed to. The companies should be concerned about losing their licenses if they don't fulfill this role. Right now they aren't, so the number one and two and three priorities are profit, not the public. They've been given a license to use a limited public resource, and so the public good should be in there somewhere.

Does this make broadcasting less profitable? Yes. Does it make broadcasting so unprofitable that it goes under? No. Not even close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am saying is that the government should reinstate and actually enforce rules that require broadcasters and other non-print media companies to actually serve the public and the communities they're licensed to. The companies should be concerned about losing their licenses if they don't fulfill this role.

What does that mean, exactly, and how do you objectively measure when the community is served?

How many little league teams must a rap station sponsor to keep its license? Does the number of little league team sponsorships required decrease if the music is something deemed by the powers that be as more wholesome, like 1950's pop? What if the rap station sponsors just one little league team, and it is the one that the senator's son plays on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. I'm not suggesting that Rush or Al Franken or whomever be censored. What I am saying is that the government should reinstate and actually enforce rules that require broadcasters and other non-print media companies to actually serve the public and the communities they're licensed to. The companies should be concerned about losing their licenses if they don't fulfill this role. Right now they aren't, so the number one and two and three priorities are profit, not the public. They've been given a license to use a limited public resource, and so the public good should be in there somewhere.

Does this make broadcasting less profitable? Yes. Does it make broadcasting so unprofitable that it goes under? No. Not even close.

Editor - I cant help but guess which side of the political spectrum your views lie. I venture to guess that you voted for the messiah. - That aside - the left leaning side of the country is overwhelming - Starting in junior high, continuing with high school, college, law school, graduate school, you name it - nearly all the staff are heavily liberal. Then you get to the Newspapers & Magazines - all the "News" (in quotes b/c their bias is a joke) are also very left leaning. Then you move to the Television - ONLY fox news reports the other perspective, and it infuriates a huge portion of the nation. Is Fox biased to the Right? Yes - is it as far Right, as CNN/MSNBC or the others are LEFT - Not a chance. Then you get to the RADIO. The only medium in which Conservatives have a voice - and you want to implement restrictions?! Are you kidding me? If you dont like it - change the channel - its what 50% of the nation has to do in every other form of media. You didnt specifically call out talk radio - but it is the only conservative leaning media, so it can be extrapolated.

The Government should not regulate speech in any way shape of form. Regulation by government ensures ONE Thing - more Government, more control thereby securing that one parties continuous rein of power. Let us not forget - we are a capitalist society, even if you dont like it - the Government does not make ANY money - they spend ours. I for one, work to hard to give the government anything more than I have to. The more regulation the more money I lose to the government. I saw a report that for the first time in this great nations history the government now employs more people than the entire manufacturing industry. That means in plain dumb english more people are now being completely supported by fewer people. Sure the service industry (doctors, lawyers, resteraunt staff) still exist, but they too are living off of one thing - manufacturing - the ability to sell a product. So the entire country is now living off of a minority. Great.

bottom line - Regulation in any form that affects SPEECH is bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...