You aren't supposed to know (sad & political)

[cantdog]

Bilderberg

Media moguls who attend Bilderberg, such as Washington Post CEO and Chairman Donald E. Graham, swear an oath of secrecy and fulfill a promise each year to omit any coverage of Bilderberg from their news outlets.

Is it really any wonder that the traditional media model is dying and that more and more enlightened people in their droves are turning to alternative news sources in search of the truth?

Even the Turkish media, hardly reputed as a bastion of free speech, put the U.S. press to shame with a deluge of newspaper and TV coverage of Bilderberg and the protest that accompanied it in Istanbul.

The dude can't spell fulfill, but stil...

 

[cloudy]

I saw a program on the History Channel (I think) about these guys. Although the usual conspiracy theorists were chiming in with some nonsense, the fact that this group exists in such secrecy is scary. Wish there was some way to learn more, but apparently they've effectively cornered the media.

 

[cantdog]

And they will still tell you you have a democratic republic and something they'd rather not define called a free press.

There really isn't much to be said. No discussion needed. While they met, you heard about Paris Hilton and the dead bimbo, there, what's her name.

 

[cloudy]

And they will still tell you you have a democratic republic and something they'd rather not define called a free press.

There really isn't much to be said. No discussion needed. While they met, you heard about Paris Hilton and the dead bimbo, there, what's her name.

Indeed. Looks like you and I are the only ones that have even heard of them, judging by the response here.

 

[shereads]

Investigative journalism is becoming a lost art. It's not because there are no more journalists with the courage to do the job (It's worth noting that more journalists have died in the Iraq war than in Vietnam). And we can't even entirely blame "media moguls" for pandering - although it would be nice, there's not likely to be a return to the days when "the news" wasn't expected to make a profit.

We pander-ees have to bear much of the blame. We bitch that our news media waste coverage on trash culture and car chases - but our own behavior makes such coverage profitable.

It would be more accurate to say that young men ages 17 to 28 are to blame. That's the most targeted audience for prime-time TV advertising. Profitable enough that advertisers can afford to ignore the rest of us, if they can catch and hold the attention of that segment of the population. It's as if millions of young men are hogging a virtual remote control, as they do with the plastic one in their living rooms.

Newspapers are another story; among my circle of friends, family and acquaintances, I can count on one hand the number of people who claim to read a daily newspaper - either a real one, or its online version. And of those few, I doubt if two of them more than glance at anything but the sports and business sections.

Help. I'm in a living nightmare where people have turned into sheep, and I'm stuck as part of the herd.

 

[rgraham666]

I've heard of the Bilderberg group.

But in a society where money is the most important thing, a person's value is determined almost entire by their wealth and everything is for sale, it's not surprising a free press becomes a bought press.

 

[3113]

Help. I'm in a living nightmare where people have turned into sheep, and I'm stuck as part of the herd.

So, you're saying they're trying to pull the wool over your eyes? Make you into just another ewe? Ram things down your throat?

 

[SeaCat]

I've heard of this group before. I have also heard comments pointing to yet another.

It's kind of scary to think of a group like this having this kind of power.

Cat

 

[SeaCat]

So, you're saying they're trying to pull the wool over your eyes? Make you into just another ewe? Ram things down your throat?

Bahhhhhhhhhhh

Cat

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I'm sure that they have power to some extent. I am also sure, as an ex-member of the John Birch Society, that the JBS and other conspiracy theorist groups exaggerate things a bit. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

And I wouldn't limit the blame to my own sex for the decline in investigative journalism. It ain't guys watching Oprah and Dr. Phil, after all.

 

[Just-Legal]

And I wouldn't limit the blame to my own sex for the decline in investigative journalism. It ain't guys watching Oprah and Dr. Phil, after all.

*snort* I know enough guys who do.

On topic - I'd heard of them, it was raised in Policy and Society class this year. More concientious post when I'm sober

 

[Caitano]

*snort* More conscientious post when I'm sober

Laughin

I can wait!

young men ages 17 to 28

I thought Joe W was older than 28, but maybe not.

I can't get over the frenzy about Paris Hilton, the weeks of coverage in huge repetitive detail, and before that Anna Nicole, and so on. When I read Nineteen Eighty-Four I wrinkled my nose at the weird news, thinking no one could ever seriously be satisfied with that kind of malarkey. It's here, man.

You have to actively seek the real news out. It's just amazing to me. I know a person who went to school for journalism, and they still teach John Peter Zenger, and the theory of a free press and an informed electorate. Maybe it isn't journalists they hire, any more.

Christ, the more I say this shit, the more I sound like the quintessential old man:
You young people today don't know what real journalism is (insert croak of failed voice and smack of toothless lips) In my day we had Murrow, and Woodward and Bernstein! And people who at least remembered Murrow!

Jesus.

 

[starrkers]

Pity Al Qaeda doesn't target a few of these secret societies and leave us poor common folks alone

(I might be joking. I'm really not sure).

 

[cantdog]

Well, it would be a room full of venal men, ruthless power seekers, cynical swine contemptuous of the likes of you and me. But even so, I don't believe an attack would be a good thing. I know what you mean, though.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

*snort* I know enough guys who do.

On topic - I'd heard of them, it was raised in Policy and Society class this year. More concientious post when I'm sober

Hmmmm.....just sayin' that it ain't just the blokes, folks.

 

[SlickTony]

I've heard of this group before. I have also heard comments pointing to yet another.

It's kind of scary to think of a group like this having this kind of power.

Cat

I've heard of them too. Back in the late 70s I joined the Libertarian Party, and there were a certain number of books about this Bilderberger group and the Illuminati in the HQ library.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I've heard of them too. Back in the late 70s I joined the Libertarian Party, and there were a certain number of books about this Bilderberger group and the Illuminati in the HQ library.

The Illuminati started out well. But when kings started joining, it was the beginning of the end. And there have been several Illuminati groups. Of which Weisthaupt's Bavarian sect was only one element. Odds are that the Bilderbergers are basically the same as the remnants of the Illuminati. They have power, but probably in much the same way as bankers and PACs. Influence, like the zaibatsus. They aren't all-powerful, but they have an excessive pull on various national governments. Just don't let the Robertsonites sell you on the Masonic/Illuminati/Zionist conspiracy BS.

 

[rgraham666]

One of my all time favourite games was Illuminati.

I was especially fond of the Orbital Mind Control Lasers.

 

[gauchecritic]

Not just the bilderbergs. When you read that Rupert Murdoch (probably one of that group) had meetings with Tony Blair just before his party winning election then you wonder about freedom of the press.

Freedom to report everything that fits sure, but freedom to choose a so-called elected government?

As people are wont to say "There ought to be a law."

 

[shereads]

Not just the bilderbergs. When you read that Rupert Murdoch (probably one of that group) had meetings with Tony Blair just before his party winning election then you wonder about freedom of the press.

Freedom to report everything that fits sure, but freedom to choose a so-called elected government?

As people are wont to say "There ought to be a law."

Back when "the press" was anybody who could afford to print some leaflets and hand them around in the tavern, it took courage to guarantee their freedom. These days, the freedom to speak our minds is all but rendered meaningless by the cost of being heard.

The price of a soapbox has become prohibitive. Blogs seem to be the modern equivalent of the soapbox - free or nearly so - but there is still the cost of generating traffic to the site.

There's simply no forum where people with ideas can reach millons of people without spending a fortune or attracting sponsors. Where would Lit be without those banner ads for XXX DIRTY HOUSEWIVES XXX that decorate your stories? It would need free publicity, like the kind Rupert Murdoch can provide. And we all know friends like that aren't free.

On our Sunday current events / talk shows, the hot topic is naturally the race to become the next Democratic or Republican presidential candidate. What's most disturbing is that these discussions are only indirectly about the candidates' popularity; they're about who will have the richest "campaign chest" in time for the primaries.

Will Obama raise enough tens of millions to be taken seriously as competition for Hilary? If Gore gets in the race, will he be too late with his fund-raising efforts?

Would that matter, if it were possible to be heard without buying the right?

Last Sunday, someone at one of these TV roundtables said, "It makes you wonder who might run for president if money weren't a factor." Well, duh. It should make everybody wonder that, and feel robbed of the chance to elect leaders who didn't have to buy a place on the ticket. It doesn't come cheap. To assemble $40 million in donations, you don't just need donors; you need donors who consider you a good investment. Raise $4 million from grass-roots supporters, and you'll be lucky if you're allowed to pose for a photo op with your party's serious candidates.

The most succesful grass-roots movement that I can recall - a movement substantially funded by individual donations - didn't really grow from the roots, but from the top: it was Karl Rove's brilliant orchestration of the gay marriage threat to galvanize the support of evangelical Christian churches for Bush in 2004.

If you're repulsed by the idea of Rupert Murdoch playing kingmaker, how would you feel about paying the president's White House staff to work on his re-election strategy? And worse, to have a constitutional amendment proposed as part of his campaign strategy? Gay marriage was hardly a blip on the radar of political issues until Bush sparked a controversy by mentioning the idea of a constitutional amendment.

Like the flag-burning amendment that gets dusted off and brought down from Congress' attic every few years, the gay marriage amendment was a cure without a disease. It succeeded brilliantly, too. Not only as a distraction from the war but as a means of bypassing the paid media; and forcing Democrats to take sides in what would inevitably be a bitter debate. For the Democrats who were likely presidential contenders, it was a debate they couldn't win. "Pro homosexual" is a label about as popular among middle-class Democrats as Republicans. Supporters of gay marriage responded with the highly publicized race to be married before local statutes could be overturned. Meanwhile, Rove was working evangelical leaders - who in turn helped whip up regional and local church support to save "the sanctity of marriage."

Not a penny of paid media had to be purchased to turn gay marriage into a key campaign issue - an impressive accomplishment for an election year with so many urgent issues on the table. Some political analysts believe it was the issue most responsible for Bush's win in 2004. Exit polls of first-time voters showed it as their number one issue.

It didn't happen for free; the money just took a different route.

We taxpayers provided a salary to Bush's best strategist, Rove, and Rove's favorite spokesmodel, the president. The news media had little choice but to delivere the message for free. Because it wasn't campaign politics; it was presidential policy.

(You have to admire these people. What they can't buy, they get by being sly.)

The word "free" as it applies to speech and the presss has two contradictory meanings. It's always paid speech, one way or another, or it doesn't find an audience.