FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Obama Bailout for Media Against Blogs

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8100

PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:06 am    Post subject: Obama Bailout for Media Against Blogs Reply with quote

Quote:
Obama: We Need To Bail Out Newspapers
Or Blogs Will Run The World


Yael Bizouati|Sep. 21, 2009, 8:44 AM

Obama yesterday expressed concern at the sorry state of the news industry and said that he will look at a news paper bailout, because otherwise, blogs will take over the world, and that would be a threat to democracy, The Hill reports.

"I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding," he said.

He said he would be happy to look a bills that could give tax newspapers tax-breaks if they were to restructure as 50 (c) (3) educational corporations. One of the bills is that of Senator Ben Cardin, who has introduced the "Newspaper Revitalization Act."

This strikes us as the worst kind of protect the horse and buggy policy imaginable. Newspapers have been printing money for 100+ years, and if the market is now putting an end to that, stifling this change probably isn't a good idea. Back in May we came up with 10 one-line reasons this kind of bailout is a terrible idea. Briefly, they were:

- It's bad to reward outdated businesses based on outdated tech.
- Newspapers delivery trucks don't run on water.
- Traditionally bloated monopolies, newspapers don't know how to innovate.
- Just because newspapers go away doesn't mean sources will.
- Newspapers employ just 0.2 percent of the nation’s labor force.
- 66% of people get their news from TV.
- Newspaper owners think Google is a parasite.
- Ask people when they last bought a paper, much less subscribed.
- A government subsidized "free press" isn't a "free press" at all.
- As newspapers go away, a shrinking supply of ad inventory will drive up ad prices, rewarding innovative new media.

Link

See Also:
Obama open to newspaper bailout bill

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
GaryGo



Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 713

PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Erm? D'ya have any money for me? Im running a little low

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
silverthread



Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 264
Location: USA

PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah Fintan ,
Obama Is responsing to a Forcasted-Trend-Wave....
{ i.e. How free IS free-will for human-species...
'Choice'...Often is Response to destined-trends & limited options}

Here's a video post on YouTube in 2007...
ForCasting how , not Only , Newspapers...
but T.V. too , due to TiVo , will soon be on State-
Life-Support...

Now , Outdated thinkers ,
such as person who wrote article ,
May complain & bicth...
Yet still...
they gotta get out the way of the Bullet-TRAIN.

Newspapers , T.V. & other-Ol' Media...
Adjusting to Media Revolution :














Here's Another Good-One :

















Yeah ,
So much for the INFINite Fr-E-E Will
of human-Species....

So ,
Let's Ride THAT Bullet-Train -YEAH Cool Cool Cool

P.S.
Outdated activist...Still lOOkin'
for some politico-'Save-Humanity REVOLUTION'...

Damn-It ! The 'Revolution' Is "Trans-Generational"...
And goin' Down Right In front of THEIR EYES Laughing
{I.E. part of 'REVOLUTION' Is : social-Media-NWO}

_________________
There are 3 things extremely hard :
steel , a diamond , and to know one's self.

Ben Franklin 1750
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
J Ruthless



Joined: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 201
Location: The Constitution State

PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Newspapers are a HUGE deal to these bastards....

TV news is blatantly for the average to below average american who would rather be ignorant then put in any effort, or put him/her self out. If its not spoon fed to them, it just spills all over their bib.
But the Newspapers are targeted at all the "smart" and savvy "grown ups" and academics who use their newspaper as a means to gain credibility over their internet/blogger counterparts. (you know them people who are always using cliché phrases such as "get with the program", "time to grow up", "you gotta play the game to get ahead in life", and "shape up or ship out". I cringe when i hear such bullshit.)

I know a lot of the people who Fintan referred to in his last audio as the pavlov's dogs of the left. And these people are not stupid, they have brains and they are successful, and they can conduct rational thought, but the conditioning is overwhelming. Anytime i bring something up that they havent read about in the newspaper, its like it never existed. Or they just look at me like ive been smoking some bad weed and change the subject, or just write me off. (BTW, These are my family and friends and neighbors too, so i cant just forget about em and move on. Even though thats what i want to do, I have to say something.)

I also know a lot of people who used to be dogs, but are now just on the line of breaking through, or who know something is wrong, but just cant get passed thinking its their own democrats who are tightening the noose. (This group has been drilled to the point that they believe the democrats are their last hope against EVIL INSANE republicans, who want to destroy their "middle class paradise".)
But when they read an article they don't quite write it off in the same manner as the dogs. For example; I have told people of things or given them an article to read, and then a week or two later they come running up to me telling me all about the same stuff that was in the article. But they read it in the newspaper this time, and totally forgot i even brought it up a week earlier. The conditioning is unbelievable. Or they come up and say how they read the same thing in the newspaper, like they were waiting for confirmation from the newspaper before they bought into it, and tell me what i said was "a little too far out there", which i hear all the time. Even though it was the same information.
I dont know where im going with this. I guess im saying that the newspapers are perceived as the spoken truth by this group. They know the news is bullshit, although for the wrong reasons (either the evil l'brals, or the devious repubelicans), but they still hold on to the papers. And the PTB does not want to get rid of that grasp. If all these people are deprived of their information source, i see two things happening. Either they go the ignorant route and just dont care, or they move on to either TV news or internet. And since most of these people hate the tv news shows, that only leaves the internet.
I think this scares the SHIT outta the PTB. No editors, no producers, no censors. Shocked

People have been conditioned to judge the person/people who are feeding them information, and not the information itself. They decide on whether the information is pertinent by whom they are getting it from and only that. They have no intention of actually going to do their own research or check out any info themselves. They just expect to read the report and be informed, no physical effort, nearly any mental effort. To them, if the source is credible the info is credible. So when they hear "crazy CT websites" all day long from the mainstream...when someone tries to give them info from an internet source....automatically they think, bullshit....and then they put the burden on you to prove it to them, with the intention of the person not being able to prove it. (which btw prob wouldn't change their minds) Even when you bring the proof, most start making excuses or get aggravated.

This is when you can tell just how far conditioned they are. If they get angry and start using abusive language, its a lost cause. If they get frustrated, and seemingly fatigued, they know its true, but the brain cant handle the thought and is fighting its own rationale. I've seen it happen. If they just deny it vehemently they are either strongly disinformed, or that type of person who just refuses to admit they are wrong, egotistical. I'd avoid them. And lastly the people who take it in, but it doesn't really phase them. It could be true, or false but cant take the time out of their pathetic lives to care. These people are caught up in the "fast life" mentality psyop. "My life is too busy for me to worry about it. I only got time to worry about myself."
(...but lets keep it on topic...)

This is why they will never give up their newspapers. And why people will support such a ridiculous bill. Its the standard source for stupid people who like to think they are smarter and more sophistocated then other people. As well as a mental barrier between the people and the internet. To them the newspapers will always be the more valuable source, and the internet will always be the "wild west", "anybody can say anything", info source.

Thats my input...a whole lot of random thoughts...i tried to organize them the best i could

_________________
Greed is for amateurs. Anarchy, Chaos, now thats fun!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GaryGo



Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 713

PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

J Ruthless wrote:
Newspapers are a HUGE deal to these bastards....


Good post Ruthless

I assume we're all talking about broadsheets here....
They have gotta be fucked for I'm guessing there will a demand for my (I mean the) tabloid puns and porn and of yeah the football and racing results.
I think certainly in the medium term there will still be a fair amount of demand for "smutty" tabloids but the vast majority of the broadsheet readers will be Internet Savvy.
It could be argued the tabloid press are better diversified as "infotainment" (soft porn, cartoons,celebrity crap,results and mass's of dodgy ads)

The broadsheets are more isolated in that they have not diversified.
and ultimately their advertisers have realized google is king.
They are also "losing" the kudos Ruthless describes...

Which is basically an internet version of what Orwell cynically described during WW2 as "There is a new saying! - I heard it on the BBC" (as if it must be true)

Its advertisers which kept the broadsheets going - so is it not really that the Advertising gravy train has moved to the internet after realizing it doesn't need the broadsheets? - Then again they are only following the people...

The people have made a choice so the business's that can't survive should fold. Isn't that what Reagan and Thatcherism was all about?

It does kinna have a ring of democracy about it?

But then again maybe we need a bit of control - in case the people start hearing that horrible stuff some people are saying about Obama.

I even heard a mad Irish Shock Jock recently saying Obama was CIA

See you wouldn't get that in the New York Times.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bri



Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 3184
Location: Capacious Creek

PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

J Ruthless wrote:

Thats my input...a whole lot of random thoughts...i tried to organize them the best i could


I hear everything you are saying J. Though the 'cultural Matrix' --or however one can describe it ---is frustrating, people's reactions are totally understandable and almost predictable at times. People are waking up though and it's important as "conspiracy theorists" that we don't assume that we are awakened either.

These "smart people" as you call them J are already breaking free of the newspapers. Of course, they are often suckered in by websites such as HuffPost which isn't all bad. Even Fox and CNN would probably not be able to survive right now without some kind of Op Ed Blog section.

A situation I experience often is encountering people who start to turn themselves off from the tv or newspaper media (young people and "Grown ups" alike) and when they start to see the bigger picture (perhaps we can thank certain websites) are either understandably turned off by the information or rant about it a few times, even more confused about the facts, and then drop it entirely for fear of going crazy. Or they dismiss it as crap because frankly much of it is presented in such a way.

I'll still take our free, open-ended Internet any day with an adjustable percent of bullshit (it's up to the readers and bloggers) over TV or the Newspaper which contains about...oh maybe 99% bullshit at best.

It's good that you are talking to people too, that's important.

GaryGo wrote:

I even heard a mad Irish Shock Jock recently saying Obama was CIA
See you wouldn't get that in the New York Times.


Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GaryGo



Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 713

PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wayne Root: ‘Let Newspapers Fail!’
September 22nd, 2009 ·

Bailout of Newspapers Threatens Free Speech and Editorial Independence.

Bailouts Constitute “Legal Bribery.”

By Wayne Allyn Root, Author
“The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts”

Members of Congress have recently suggested that the federal government should undertake a billion dollar newspaper bailout. President Obama seems interested. Really? Why? Because the other bailouts worked out so well? Congressional investigators recently disclosed their doubts that AIG will ever be able to payback it’s government loans. At the same time, economists suggest that at least $20 billion of the government loans to U.S. automakers are lost forever. GM and Chrysler now constitute a $100 billion welfare program, that just happens to sell cars (that no one wants). Meanwhile the economy continues to flounder despite the $800 billion economic stimulus package (a bailout to more fat cat corporations and Obama contributors). This disaster just keeps on growing (because government is involved).
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/09/wayne-root-let-newspapers-fail/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
silverthread



Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 264
Location: USA

PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

YEAH....

"Let Newspapers Fail!’
September 22nd, 2009 ·
By Wayne Allyn Root, Author
“The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts”

It now amazes me That :
what Libertarians say & write....I now can SEE
as being Straigth from : John Birch Society Play-Book.

Now , when I hear a libertarian... rant their talking-points
I simply refer to John Birch Society website....
& There I can See where their comin' from.

J.ohn-B.irch-S.ociety :



_________________
There are 3 things extremely hard :
steel , a diamond , and to know one's self.

Ben Franklin 1750


Last edited by silverthread on Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:33 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
silverthread



Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 264
Location: USA

PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OH Yeah ;
Almost Forgot :


_________________
There are 3 things extremely hard :
steel , a diamond , and to know one's self.

Ben Franklin 1750
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
duane



Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 554
Location: western pennsylvania

PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i'm not a big Ayn Rand fan but on this subject......
So what did Ayn Rand think of Libertarians?
Well, let's ask her:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians

Ayn Rand’s Q & A on Libertarianism

More

Q: What do you think of the Libertarian movement? [FHF: “The Moratorium on Brains,” 1971]

AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.

Q: What do you think of the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “A Nation’s Unity,” 1972]

AR: I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis
. I don’t think they’re as funny as Professor Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If, at a time like this, John Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime. I don’t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers. But this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don’t run for President—or even dogcatcher—if you’re going to help McGovern.

Q: What is your position on the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “Censorship: Local and Express,” 1973]

AR: I don’t want to waste too much time on it. It’s a cheap attempt at publicity, which Libertarians won’t get. Today’s events, particularly Watergate, should teach anyone with amateur political notions that they cannot rush into politics in order to get publicity. The issue is so serious today, that to form a new party based in part on half-baked ideas, and in part on borrowed ideas—I won’t say from whom—is irresponsible, and in today’s context, nearly immoral.

Q: Libertarians advocate the politics you advocate. So why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “Egalitarianism and Inflation,” 1974]

AR:They are not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every of persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Moreover, most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now, I think it’s a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.

Q: Have you ever heard of [Libertarian presidential candidate] Roger MacBride? [FHF: “?” 1976]

AR: My answer should be, “I haven’t.” There’s nothing to hear. I have been maintaining in everything I have said and written, that the trouble in the world today is philosophical; that only the right philosophy can save us. Now here is a party that plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists, and just about every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and they call themselves Libertarians, and run for office. I dislike Reagan and Carter; I’m not too enthusiastic about the other candidates. But the worst of them are giants compared to anybody who would attempt something as un-philosophical, low, and pragmatic as the Libertarian Party. It is the last insult to ideas and philosophical consistency.

Q: Do you think Libertarians communicate the ideas of freedom and capitalism effectively? [Q&A following LP’s “Objective Communication,” Lecture 1, 1980]

AR: I don’t think plagiarists are effective. I’ve read nothing by a Libertarian (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn’t my ideas badly mishandled—i.e., had the teeth pulled out of them—with no credit given. I didn’t know whether I should be glad that no credit was given, or disgusted. I felt both. They are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable.

Q: Why don’t you approve of the Libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works? [FHF: “The Age of Mediocrity,” 1981]

AR: Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people
: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program.

Q: The Libertarians are providing intermediate steps toward your goals. Why don’t you support them? [Ibid., 1981]

AR: Please don’t tell me they’re pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks. I want philosophically educated people: those who understand ideas, care about ideas, and spread the right ideas. That’s how my philosophy will spread, just as philosophy has throughout all history: by means of people who understand and teach it to others. Further, it should be clear that I do not endorse the filthy slogan, “The end justifies the means.” That was originated by the Jesuits, and accepted enthusiastically by Communists and Nazis. The end does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means. Finally, the Libertarians aren’t worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism.

_________________
Birth is the first example of " thinking outside the box"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
silverthread



Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 264
Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote :
articles
states :

Ayn Rand says :
Moreover, most of them are my enemies:
they spend their time denouncing me,
while plagiarizing my ideas.

Now, I think it’s a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party
to start by stealing ideas."

Yes , by ALL means:
Ayn Rand MUST get credit for HER-Ideas...

Yes , Libertarians PLAGIARIZE Her Ideas....
So , for Her To Denounce them IS :
Like a mother denouncing Her 'BasTard-Child'...

And for Libertarians to denounce her IS :
Like Bastard-Child denouncing their un-Wed- Mother.

BESIDES :
Ayn Rand endorsed Barry Goldwater in his 1964
bid for president.
Check-it-OUT :
http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/goldwater.html


NOW ,
let's read about Barry Goldwater :

"Goldwater is the politician most often credited
for sparking the resurgence of the American conservative
political movement in the 1960s.

He also had a substantial impact on
the libertarian movement."

Now click on link...
THEN click-On hyperlink : Libertarian-Movement
In 2nd paragraph :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater



LIBERTARIAN :



BTW ,
JBS ALSO Endored Goldwater
For President Exclamation

DON'T Ya'
Just LUV 'Em....
JBS-
Ayn-RAND-
Liberterians ???

_________________
There are 3 things extremely hard :
steel , a diamond , and to know one's self.

Ben Franklin 1750
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.