Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

How Our Gutless Media Helped Trigger the Credit Crisis

By Trudy Lieberman, Columbia Journalism Review. Posted November 20, 2008.


Government and greedy bankers aren't the only ones to blame.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Why Are We Locking Up Traumatized Veterans for Their Addictions Instead of Offering Them Treatment?
Penny Coleman

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Immigrants and Health-Care: What Part of LEGAL Doesn't Washington Understand?
Marielena Hincapié

Media and Technology:
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh Stoking GOP Civil War
Eric Boehlert

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
Ugly Truth: Most U.S. Kids Sentenced to Die In Prison Are Black
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Afghanistan Is Worse Off Than Ever, Thanks to the Sham Army We're Propping Up
Chris Hedges

More stories by Trudy Lieberman

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Last year, New York's state legislature, which has historically led the nation in passing pro-consumer credit legislation, approved a pair of bills aimed at protecting residents from questionable lending practices, the kind that have come back to haunt the economy. One of them would have put the brakes on the "universal default" provision, which lenders use to jack up the rates on credit cards if a cardholder misses a payment on a card issued by another lender. This practice has caused credit-card rates for some people to soar into the 20 or even the 30 percent range, far surpassing what once was considered criminal usury and helping to pile on debt that has contributed to mortgage foreclosures. But then-Governor Eliot Spitzer vetoed the bill, arguing that it would force lenders to increase interest rates or fees for all credit-card holders, even those with good credit records. Spitzer also claimed that the law wouldn't do any good anyway because federal law would preempt state law, and federal law allows banks to bypass state usury laws by setting up shop in states with lax regulation.

Whatever the merits of Spitzer's argument, it was an important discussion for New York and the rest of the country. But his veto was like the proverbial tree falling in the empty forest. The AP's Albany bureau sent out no story, and the news editor does not recall why. A Nexis search found only one brief mention of the veto, in the Albany Times Union. Spitzer sided with the banks and the media were silent.

This would not always have been the case. What happened in Albany is just one piece of evidence of the decline of the consumer movement, the rise of consumerism to replace it, and the media's role in both trends. The consumer movement that rose in the 1960s pushed for laws and regulations to protect buyers from the excesses of the marketplace. The press aided both its creation and its demise, then helped to replace it with consumerism, which serves the individual shopper but not systemic reform that might benefit everyone.

Nowhere is that clearer than with the issue of credit, where the consumer movement scored its first victories -- and where the erosion of hard-won protections has contributed to the nation's current economic turmoil. Back in 1967, Sidney Margolius, a syndicated consumer-affairs writer and author, testified before a subcommittee of the House Banking and Currency Committee about unscrupulous debt collection tactics, deceptive selling practices to goad people into buying on credit, and misleading credit terms that resulted in exorbitant interest rates. "The damage to consumers themselves is greater than many of us may realize," Margolius told members of Congress. "To a large extent -- and this may seem a little strong to swallow at first -- consumer exploitation has replaced labor exploitation as the real problem of our times." Forty-plus years later, some of the same issues bedevil consumers. Only now they are often viewed as simply aggressive business practices for lenders, not consumer exploitation. Gretchen Morgenson, in her July 20 New York Times piece, "Given a Shovel, Americans Dig Deeper into Debt", pointed out that lenders "have found new ways to squeeze more profit from borrowers" using sophisticated marketing tactics and personal financial data to tailor their pitches, making debt sound desirable and risk-free. Finally the fallout came. As Dean Starkman, who runs The Audit on cjr.org, pointed out in this magazine in March ("Red Ink Rising"), American credit-card debt now stands at more than $900 billion, up 9,000 percent from 1968, having risen by a third between 2001 and 2006. Worse, he noted that more than three quarters of the credit industry's profits now come from people who make minimum monthly payments. As he further reported, these industry-wide changes followed a regulatory rollback and were by and large missed by the nation's press.

Call it a special time in American history -- the nation's third consumer movement, following the one sparked by writers like Ida Tarbell and Upton Sinclair around the turn of the previous century, and a second movement born from hardship during the Great Depression. This one began with the publication of Ralph Nader's Unsafe at Any Speed in 1965, in which he questioned the safety of GM's Corvair. General Motors retaliated by hiring a detective to spy on Nader, hoping to unearth enough dirt to bury him. Instead, GM's tactics turned Nader into a folk hero, and GM president James Roche apologized to a congressional committee. Nader had been called as a witness at a hearing on auto safety, and it's a federal crime to harass or intimidate a congressional witness. After that, Nader and his Raiders, a band of bright young activists and lawyers, went about the business of building support for laws that would make cars and medicines safer, shopping for credit easier, and the air cleaner. They brought to stodgy Washington a new public-interest perspective and began to disrupt the cozy relationships that businesses had developed with the agencies that regulated them.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: media, press, consumerism, credit, ralph nader, loans

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Then there was the 2005 Bankruptcy Act ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Nov 20, 2008 12:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was covered more by the press but the real facts sometimes escaped the print ... Our friend Greenspan even discussed the moral turpitude of those many who declared bankruptcy.

The 2005 bankruptcy bill was opposed by a wide variety of groups, including consumer advocates, legal scholars, retired bankruptcy judges, and the editorial pages of many national and regional newspapers. While criticisms of the bill were wide ranging, the central objections of its opponents focused on the bill's sponsors' contention that bankruptcy fraud was widespread, the strict means test that would force more debtors to file under Chapter 13 (under which a percentage of debts must be paid over a period of 3-5 years) as opposed to Chapter 7 (under which debts are paid only out of existing assets), the additional penalties and responsibilities the bill placed on debtors, and the bill's many provisions favorable to credit card companies. Opponents of the bill regularly pointed out that the credit card industry spent more than $100 million lobbying for the bill over the course of eight years.[15] There has also been significant criticism of BAPCPA's changes to Chapter 11 business bankruptcies.[16] Harvey Miller, one of the most-prominent bankruptcy attorneys in the country (particularly in terms of representing corporate debtors) has described BAPCPA as "ill-conceived."[17]

One of the primary stated purposes of the bankruptcy bill was to cut down on abusive or fraudulent uses of the bankruptcy system. As Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis), one of the bill's key supporters in the House, argued, "This bill will help restore responsibility and integrity to the bankruptcy system by cracking down on fraudulent, abusive, and opportunistic bankruptcy claims."[18] Opponents of the bill argued that claims of bankruptcy abuse and fraud were wildly overblown, and that the vast majority of bankruptcies were related to medical expenses and job losses. Their arguments were supported by an in-depth study by Harvard University medical and legal scholars, which found that more than half of bankruptcies were attributable to unpaid medical bills.[19] wiki

In other words the 2005 Bankruptcy Act is the adoption of virtual serfdom for those unfortunate enough to get sick without health insurance or inadequate health insurance.

We need Medicare for All ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you Trudy
Posted by: weathered on Nov 20, 2008 3:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With a sincere feeling of confidence, that essential ingredient that consummer based capitalism craves, many a economic set back can be right-sized.

But when the consummer has been betrayed onto a false floor of confidence based on a biz press that goes through contortions of mis and disinformation. Then you've killed what could or should have been a meaningful relationship.

The power of the media if rightly used could be a noble, honorable and very positive element to stimulate the public - but its not.

MSM died on 9/11 it got crushed in its own rubble, still stuck in the disbelief, just look around.

As long as MSM continues to Lie any trust will erode and behind it you'll see anger and behind that you'll see violence.

GE has NO business owning NBC and as long as Judy Miller has the balls to take job at Fox w/out debased shame this descent of trust and respect will avalanche.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thank you Trudy Posted by: Yankeeinexile
Damn right ! Even a glance look at those sleazy liars doing the commercials and
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 20, 2008 5:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
sadly you'll see a lot of suckers ready to get themselves MUGGED. And I used to wonder back in 2001 just how many idiots would fall for those lies by ditech.com. Apparently a hell of a lot more than even I had anticipated. Maybe too many more people have been so corn-fed to the point that they'll never stop let alone think twice before leaping.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

J-School post Watergate
Posted by: solitarysherlockian on Nov 20, 2008 7:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In those antediluvian days before Watergate, J-Schools were full of budding journalists who wanted to tell the story. Then Watergate hit--and J-School enrollments zoomed 2-3 and 5 times what they had been. HOT Scoop Journalists wanted to be in the news more than covering the news. The results have not been good for the news. Neither has the corporate-buyouts of MSM and others. The result is lapdog journalism, that serves the news maker--not the public.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Credit Crisis Caused By Excessive Credit!!!
Posted by: MaxAndroid on Nov 20, 2008 8:12 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article blames everything except the one true culprit -- cheap and easy credit.

When we allow the Federal Reserve to open up its money pump to give money to Banks (which works totally against the free market, by the way) we are creating a problem called "moral hazard". There are plenty of people that should not have credit but we live in such a delusional, liberal society that believes everyone deserves a house of their own without having to do anything to earn it. What kind of message does this send to people who actually behave responsibly and want to save? An other question: why should anyone save when interest rates are artificially low and credit is too easy?

But really, the fundamentals of our economy are not sound. We need to get out of debt, save, invest, and produce more before we can begin to consume at the levels we have previously been used to. Credit can only come from saving and interest rates should be set by the market (supply and demand for credit) and not artificially by a lawless organization such as the Federal Reserve.

This is not to say some lenders aren't to blame more than others. When it comes down to it every transaction involves two parties and there is no such thing as "no fault". Ignorance is no excuse is a society with such easy access to information -- this includes banks who lend to people that shouldn't have credit and people who borrow knowing they will never be able to pay back if the interest rates are readjusted.

Either way, baton down the hatches. We're in for a long ride with what will undoubtedly amount to hardcore socialism from Obama. There is no chance he will question the Fed's legitimacy so it will be business as usual, i.e., no change at all!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

print vs tv/radio
Posted by: sharonsylvie on Nov 20, 2008 8:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Print journalism remains head and shoulders above the crap we get on TV and radio. However, the majority of Americans get their news mostly from TV, which gives us 24 hours of entertainment and speculation and precious little news. The other thing TV does is have 3-5 guests on all at once, who do nothing but yell and argue, while the host does nothing. Or you get the reverse, like Cavuto and Matthews, who ask a question and then interrupt the answer. Generally they just let people say whatever they please without refutation, such as the interviewer letting it pass when the CEO of Pfizer claims "we're not political." Oh, yeah? What about those tons of lobbyists and all those campaign donations? If you want to know why Americans are dumb as dirt, that's the answer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: print vs tv/radio Posted by: VZEQICVA
sensationalism vs. journalism
Posted by: pacto on Nov 20, 2008 8:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
sadly these last two generations of talking heads don`t have the savvy to know the difference. The ability to report is to be alert to issues; but not express your opions but these :sic : reporters are just prattlers.... so witty ......and drole...egotistical twits

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That's how a corrupt system works...
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Nov 20, 2008 9:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The media supports the Government and it's Industrial controllers. They need some well dressed idiots that can sound like they are an authority to tell us buy! buy! buy! so they can keep the wannabe wealthy spending their asses off on a sinking ship.

According to the mediawe,the people, told DC to bailout Wall St. Nothing could be further from the truth. The faces are changing but the game damn sure isn't.

Bog O is cramming his team with 'clintonites'
and this is somehow change?!! They bark about what didn't we like about the Clinton's time the prosperity or the peace. Guess what..we didn't have either. They bombed the shit out of Iraq and the only prosperity was with those whom had investment capital.

The media won't cover anything that makes real news reporting. They barely pass as a news outlet. Corrupt governance or not what will be on the news is the poor burning down Wall St. But they'll call it 'terrorism' and Big O will nuke the homeless and the media will make it easy to swallow.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's lots that never make the press
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Nov 20, 2008 9:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the roles taken on by JP Morgan is to "manage" commodities prices by short selling in the futures market. They now get to do this with taxpayer money. Did oil actually go down 70 percent on its own, or was it helped along? What happens when this scheme goes bust?

Silver and gold are tops on the Morgan list of commodities to "manage". In the case of silver, producers are now closing mines, even though there's a shortage of silver. If precious metals prices weren't managed, chump money might leave the market, and we couldn't have that! How do Wall Street managers get out if the chumps aren't there to buy on the dips?

Now I own silver and gold physical, and this game, while annoying, is about as silly as one can get in the financial markets. A default is coming, which will boost the prices substantially. Problem is that this kind of event is dangerous for the system as a whole. A blowup in the price of gold will shake the markets. That kind of event is dangerous to all of us, even the clowns living in their fallout shelters armed with their AK-47s.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The gutless media......
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Nov 20, 2008 8:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With the rise of corporate owned media, "celebrity journalists", and the overall chasing of money more and more of what should be in the best interest of the public now goes untold! Since when did "news" become a profit driven enterprise!?! Not to mention that the level of the print media has been dumbed down to the level of a 4th grader. The job of journalists used to be to inform the public on the everyday issues that affect their lives, both pro and con- that doesn't happen any more! The media even now refuse to accept that they didn't do due diligence in the lead up to the war in Iraq! While there were a few that tried to get the real story out, there were far more "faux journalists" crying treason!

When Reagan came into office and ushered in the real assault on society at large, the media started to acquiesce! In the last 8 years the media has been reduced down to "puff" pieces and infotainment. Today we have our own version of Watergate, an Executive that has grabbed power and used it to further his corporate cronies interests, and yet the very compliant corporate media have been unwilling to expose the underhanded tactics that have embroiled this nation in 2 wars, a savaged economy and a "corporate oligarchy" that we call "the government"! We the people deserve so much more! Of course, all of this has been made so much easier with the foxes that are "supposed" to be in charge of the rules and regulations! Why do we continue to have people put in charge of regulating the industries that they once worked in/for? Why? It is time that politics come out and real standards come back!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: I Am Broke
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Nov 20, 2008 2:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If your broker 'advised' you to put all your money in any one single sector, you have a legitimate complaint against him/her. It's an unsuitable investment strategy. Anna

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PREDATORY LENDING IS OK
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Nov 20, 2008 2:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just got home and checked my e-mail. There were 66 junk mails, almost all offering credit, loans, great jobs, mortgages, etc. I'm not interested in any of it so I deleted everything. Then I thought about some poor slob who is out of work, is late with the rent/mortgage, maybe married with kids and wondered how these e-mails looked to him. It's not possible to protect everyone from everything but this type of mail had increased over the past few weeks. It's not a coincidence. Where the junk mail is set on your computer doesn't keep it out. I know we can't censor, but we actually have people in this country who think it's OK to ban books. I think it's OK to ban this crap. It is intentionally targeting the people who can least afford it. Of course if anyone is stupid enough to fall for it, it's their own fault. They failed to read the fine print or some such nonsense. They should have known better. Isn't it time that our lawmakers take a look at what could easily be defined as illegally soliciting business. Call it anything, but it should stop. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: PREDATORY LENDING IS OK Posted by: JSquercia
why are the americans not up in arms?what a cowed down people!
Posted by: avatar_singh on Nov 20, 2008 3:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
or is it because they are very very selfish so much when others in iraq were being killed for the profit of the americans oils the american masses kept quiet-now when their own pocket is hurting they are sqeaking but still have lost the pwoer or guts to protest?
afterall the 700 billion dolalr rescue for the walls treer shiums of paulson was okeyd within 3 days by the democractic congressmen including that raeid , the same reid who is asking the gm and ford chairmen to come up with detailed busines plan so that they can sit down in december to think of giving laon of 25 billion.
that paltry sum compared to wall street loot will be for sake of american industrial productiona nd for saving 3 million jobs.
but the stupid american masses are quiet and are not in the street up in the arms shaouting and killing those bqastrds who helped the financiards with 700 billions but are reluctant to give 25 billions to auto industry!
what sort of people the americans are?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Entire financial system in the US of A, Inc.
Posted by: beijaflor on Nov 20, 2008 4:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
could be brought to a screeching halt by all of the people who have credit cards.
Yes, You. How? By not paying on them! Everyone seems far too fearful of not paying their taxes, but this nonpayment on cards and the attendant insane interest rates, would be an interesting act of fiscal disobedience.
Would that get the attention of the Congress-critters in DC? Oh, I think so.
The truth of the matter is that people are losing jobs right and left and will be/are deciding between food, housing, medicine and fuel. Or looking at homelessness.
This is already happening to people that I know; too many cards and no wage/salary increases, chronic underemployment or no job at all.
Are you worrying about your so called credit rating/fico score? Well, stop, because the good old US of A is bankrupt.
The bankruptcy bill that passed in '05 was and is truly a horror. One Hundred million spent by the banking lobby says it all...
BTW, I do not have credit cards; I gave myself "plastic surgery", yup, cut the dang things up, 20 years ago.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whose crisis is it? It is the crisis of Kensianism, mixed economy not the free market or capitalism!
Posted by: Social liberal on Nov 20, 2008 4:55 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it the industrial society's crisis we see today? We have heard the litany of the far left; it is a "free market economy crisis". We have heard tales of woe as the regard to the crisis of capitalism, the excesses of deregulation, the neoliberal ideology’s crisis and the crisis of globalization.

But it is not the industrial society’s crisis we see today; although those who are opposed to economic growth and prosperity would wish for such a crisis.


Is it the free market economy crisis we now see? A system built on the markets tends to be contrasted with a system without markets. Such views are held by people that argue that markets should be eliminated in favor of a socialist system. Very few wants to revert to an authoritarian, command and centrally planned economy, one that already has been shown not to be able to produce and increase prosperity and welfare.

Perhaps the criticism of the lack of regulation seems a little too paltry? It is much easier to rail against the ideology of freedom, libertarianism or neo-liberalism. To vaguely ask for more stabilization policies using the crisis as an argument does not mean that the idea of freedom is wrong. Or is the financial crisis proof that taxes were too low and that the crisis should be fought with tax increases?

The criticism of the “unregulated” financial economy has not been very successful when it comes to the details. The origin of the crisis lies in the U.S. house market, it suffered under heavy regulations that arguably are a significant factor behind the blown housing bubble. The criticism has instead been targeted at various conditions that led to that the crisis, once it occurred, could spread so quickly. Many argue that this is cause of the crisis. This is a very difficult question that has not been investigated. Instead the fault of the crisis has been put at the door of the rating agencies, the securitization of bad loans, the Fannie and Freddie’s actors’ rotten morale and to the low unemployment compensation in the US, at least compared to Sweden. So whose crisis is it?

Finally, one might say that we now see is the crisis of the idea that financial collapse could have been fought at the same time had it had its reason in the real economy. The beginning of what could have been a collapse we saw on the stock exchange in the U.S. in 1987, it could be fought. But the financial crash in September 2008 could not be fought. When it erupted as an unexpected escalation of the mortgage crisis it was allowed to continue with only half hearted and clumsy countermeasures, pushed through with great doubt and dissent. The lack of confidence in the action taken is now leading to larger and increasing urgent packages to be called for even if it is very unlikely that it will lead to recovery i.e. the Detroit Bailout. At best these measures might have a slight effect of slowing the crisis down, prolonging it.

We have seen the same process in the 1930s, after that we saw the emergence of the Stockholm School and Keynes' theories. “- Crises will never again occur”, yes, Keynes said that it in 1927 before his “General Theory “ 1936. Super-Keynesian Sweden could not fight the home-baked real estate-banking crisis in the 90’s - not in the sense that huge losses in production and unemployment could have been avoided. Despite theories of both fiscal and monetary policies (and job saving policies) neither can the present crisis be fought particularly successfully in the U.S. or Sweden.

It is in fact a stabilization policy crisis we see today.

It is the impression, hope that governments have such powerful tools, that if the economy starts to slide into recession it can deploy countermeasures, so that we can avoid crashing into the ditch that has been thwarted. This impression is in fact wrong - all the fine theories notwithstanding.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

insightful article
Posted by: off-the-radar 2 on Nov 20, 2008 8:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
thanks, great article, helpful background and context.

The internet is an incredibly powerful countervailing tool as MSM become irrelevant to thinking people (and they are a lot of us!)---which is why corporate control of the internet will be the next point of contention.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The far left and the far right rail against Main Stream Media
Posted by: Social liberal on Nov 21, 2008 10:21 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is ironic that the far left rails at Main Stream Media, MSM, are as in my home country left; centre-left to left. In Sweden 75 % of the journalists are voting for the Greens, Socialist (marxiast-leninists) or SocialDemocrats and the far left socialist and Greens have more than 50 %. I assume if you transplant it to US politics you would get the same spectrum. I know that for instance 80 5 of US university professors are Liberal, liberal with a large L and left-liberal, and I assume that at least the same goes for US journalists.

Does that mean that Main Stream Media is biased, not necessarily but the selection of points of views most certainly is i.e. the selection of topics to discuss and investigate? Fox News is unbiased in its reporting BUT is open that their selection and discussion is from a center-right to conservative perspective. Personally I prefer when people are open with their bias instead of professing to be unbiased and in action be blatantly biased. So what does the far left want to do, ban and forbid conservative Talk Radio by reintroducing the oxymoron "the Fairness Doctrine"? Calling it fair when it is restricting free speech!

If the far left wants to start Talk Radio etc. they are free to do it but the problem is that there are not enough listeners wanting to listen or pay to listen. Instead they wish to regulate and get the tax payer to shell up money to get their message out. Free speech in America is restricted enough as it is in America, we don't need further restrictions. The conservative movement successfully started Talk Radio and Fox News and the far left has its AlterNet and Huffington post as well as MNSBC. What more do they want? For us classic liberals, classic social liberals as myself and even for libertarians, it is a great concern that both the far left and the far right wants to curb our right to free expression and wants to intervene in our free choice restrict it at best or take it away at worst.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Might not have anything to do with gutlessness.
Posted by: YogiBear on Nov 21, 2008 5:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My guess is since the MSM has uniformly cut its staffs down to next to nothing, things slip past them all the time. Our daily paper has one fifth of the political reproters it had 15-20 years ago and more trimming is likely in the future. Reporter pay is not rising; in some places it's declining, yet media CEOs are making moolah hand over fist. So, journalists are always mving to better paying jobs, and newbies who don't understand the nuances of an issue might pass it over if they don't understand its importance.

Just a guess, really.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Eat a banker, BBQ a CEO, parboil a politician, serve up a mutlinational
Posted by: thekidde on Nov 22, 2008 12:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
with an apple in his mouth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nobody Believes the Establishment News Media Anymore-- with reason!
Posted by: joeocho88 on Nov 22, 2008 5:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a former newspaper person.
I can remember when newspapers TOLD THE TRUTH!
I can remember when newspapers won awards for ferreting out corruption and getting the bad guys in trouble and seeing that they got what they deserved.
I can remember when I as a newspaper reporter, as an editor could TELL THE TRUTH and IT WAS ACTUALLY TRUE. It could be proved and often was!
Then, around 1981, I noticed a subtle change in newspaper hiring...
Few and fewer newspapers were independently owned and more and more were being bought up by conglomerates that were using computers and technology to cut labor costs.
And it was the YOUNG WHITE GUYS IN WHITE SHIRTS AND TIES ( You NEVER wore white shirts in a newspaper operation because printers ink would permanently stain your clothes)WHO SEEMED TO BE THE ONLY ONES HIRED TO COVER THE NEWS AND THERE WAS A ROBOT SAMENESS ABOUT THEM THAT WAS RATHER INHUMAN AND DOWNRIGHT SCARY TO THOSE OF US WHO REMEMBERED WHEN THE PRESS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A NEWSPAPER!

THEY DIDN'T WANT ANYBODY OVER 30 IN THE NEWSROOM BECAUSE WE KNEW HOW IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE. I THINK THEY THOUGHT WE KNEW TOO MUCH!

THESE NEW GUYS, THEY COULD BRAINWASH EN MASSE AND DEPEND ON THEM TO TOE THE PARTY LINE --THAT THE TRUTH WAS WHATEVER CORPORATE SAID IT WAS.

SO THAT IS THE MEDIA THAT THESE COST-CUTTING BASTARDS WHO WANTED TO ELIMINATE JOBS AND THE VETERANS FROM THE NEWSPAPER BUSINESS GOT AND NOW THAT THEIR AD REVENUES ARE DOWN-- AND NOT MANY PEOPLE ARE READING AND BELIEVING THEIR PROPAGANDA ANYMORE BECAUSE ENOUGH OF US VETERANS ARE AROUND TO TELL THE PEOPLE WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON... I AM SUPPOSED TO BE BEMOAN THE DEATH OF NEWSPAPERS AS THEY ARE NOW?

NEWSPAPERS STOPPED BEING NEWSPAPERS QUITE A WHILE AGO! THIS IS ONE FUNERAL I WILL BE GLAD TO SEE! SAVE THE TREES FOR SOMETHING IMPORTANT,LIKE TOILET PAPER WHICH IS ALL THESE CORPORATE,FASCIST PUBLICATIONS ARE GOOD FOR!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement