What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
88 Comments
- inactive, on 05/29/2009, -6/+41This is an important article, I went to shout it but then remembered I can't shout anymore :(
- inactive, on 05/29/2009, -5/+38There were voices.
Lew Rockwell, mises.org, Peter Schiff, Marc Faber, Michael Hudson, Karl Deninger, Max Keizer, Jim Rogers.
Some of them were even on TV.
The herd was going in the other direction and didn't want to listen - amabaie, on 05/29/2009, -5/+36THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ARTICLE! There. I shouted it.
- NorthMass, on 05/29/2009, -3/+23Everyone besides a few brilliant economists like Jim Rogers and Peter Schiff got it wrong, and now all the people that got it wrong are telling us we are entering a bottom, while Schiff and Rogers are saying we are heading towards an inflationary depression.
Believe who you want to believe, but I think it is obvious who is telling the truth. - Bagos1, on 05/29/2009, -1/+20And the main street news offed them....even disqualified and vilified some presidential candidates that had it right too.
- thegrantman, on 05/29/2009, -3/+21I disagree with using "a sort of institutionalized Stockholm Syndrome" as an excuse.
Portraying the media as "victim" affords them the option of excusing their behavior in the future.
"We didn't know" and "We were misled" would be outright lies.
There have been thousands of articles that have shown the financial crisis has been used for personal and political gain. Instances of lying,theft,impropriety,manipulation of the market,and spending under false pretense are so plentiful and obvious that there is no way for them not to at least raise an eyebrow.
It is deceit, pure and simple, and they should be as culpable as the black marketeers. - DonAlfred, on 05/29/2009, -1/+16American "journalism" makes me sick. It has nothing to do with true journalism.
- Nymphe, on 05/29/2009, -0/+15It's a sad day when people can get better news from message boards and blogs. I've even made money with them, ignoring the mainstream press' advice.
- mjk340, on 05/29/2009, -3/+17"It remains to be seen if the media are, indeed, up to the task."
No, they aren't. The media is even more short sighted than the financial derivatives market. They are only concerned with selling a headline tomorrow, not the general welfare or long term outlook of our nation. - spongya77, on 05/29/2009, -2/+14The media had failed in many more occasions. Iraq, hysteria about Iran, the Israeli-Palestine conflict, Iran-contra... In fact, it only fails. Time to ask if it really serves its (stated) purpose in its present form.
- ShrikeDeCil, on 05/29/2009, -3/+15The hearings over Fanny and Freddie -should- have been a major wakeup in 2005-2006. Plenty of blame to splash in all conceivable directions.
But the financial journalists really should have been on that entire set of hearings like hyenas. - treehugger87, on 05/29/2009, -0/+12Stockholm syndrome my ass. The media doesn't report honestly on the financial crisis because it is against their financial interest to do so.
- msheidi, on 05/29/2009, -2/+13the press is betting everything they have on obama. he will fail too.
- Bagos1, on 05/29/2009, -4/+14I would like to point out that man of those past financial gangsters are now in charge of the purse strings of the government....hence us. The media is still not reporting the truth. We are being dug a deeper grave by the same people who bought the plot. I fear this is leading to a catastrophe beyond what we are being told.
- juankovo, on 05/29/2009, -1/+11Learn: http://www.mises.org/
- dupery, on 05/29/2009, -1/+10My favorite herd response was "we can't do nothing!" The talking heads all bought into this gem of reasoning.
- mah2cent, on 05/29/2009, -0/+9Journalist have become the parrot of government, no objectivity, no questioning of economic theory.
- Tenareth, on 05/29/2009, -0/+8It's the Internet age, there is no real need to watch the mainstream media anymore. There are a lot of other places to go, but it won't be spoon fed to you.
Also, need to look at a LOT of sources so you can balance out the crazies. - AmyVernon, on 05/29/2009, -4/+12lol... well, a tweet. :-)
- kemp34, on 05/29/2009, -1/+9As if the ONLY actor in society and the economy is the government! This sort of mindless rationalization is the mark of a totalitarian society. Only government can do anything.
- acknotSW, on 05/29/2009, -0/+7I've got the same feeling, like I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. There is no way we have gotten out of this mess that easily.
- Angostura, on 05/29/2009, -0/+7I was a journalist for about 15 years (not a financial one) and I think there are some misconceptions here about journalism. Most journalists are not experts in the subjects upon which they report. In fact expertise can sometimes be frowned upon as being "too close to the subject". What journalists tend to do... is attempt to listen to all sides of the story and then build a balanced account. In other words they rely on their sources representing a spectrum of opinion. During the research (for a tech story, say) you will go to a company's competitors to find out what the down-side of a company's products are. You'll then bounce these ideas and opinions around the opposing view points to stress-test them.
The problem that journalists had in this case was a dearth of credible people to use as sources who were predicting doom. As an journalist you can't just write "we're doomed" because any decent editor will say "stand that up... who's saying it? Do other experts agree? does it seem rational and plausible?"
There were a few voices crying out that trouble was brewing and there were a few journalists reporting on this. But I'm not surprised that journalists weren't writing stories about something that no-one was really talking about. - BKnecht, on 05/29/2009, -1/+7The issue is the 4th estate -- the duty and obligation of a free press in a democracy.
Ideological crap about the President has nothing to do with this and does not further the discussion.
"American Journalism", for all but very few exceptions, failed with Bush and it continues to fail with Obama. - ridusoftyranny, on 05/29/2009, -3/+9Great article. I can only hope this gets read all over the globe. Objective journalism in the US is on life support, and currently only practiced by a few. The push to promote the political agenda (propaganda) has taken precedence.
It doesn't really matter what you believe about the future (although my predictions are quite dire). What really matters is that people have enough knowledge to make better decisions to plan for tomorrow. And this is where our media (and government) has failed. - AmyVernon, on 05/29/2009, -5/+11Well, to be fair, a good number of those articles were indeed in the mainstream media. There were some journalists who were covering what needed to be covered. But I also know, from personal experience, that the demands on most (not all) journalists in most (not all) newsrooms in terms of production are utterly unreasonable and the individual journalists are generally good people who honestly want to do a good job.
- dougs55, on 05/29/2009, -0/+6Funny that you should mention editors. Even as a mere reader I can see them spinning the original journalists story around all the time. One of my all time favorites was a San Jose Mercury News article "Scientists declare cel phones safe". That was on page one of the Business section. Then if you turned to page 23 you learned in the very last paragraph that the majority of scientist considered the study cited in the headline a piece of crap.
- treehugger87, on 05/29/2009, -0/+6The Savings & Loan failure in the 80s should have been a major wakeup. I'm guessing that we won't learn the lesson from this crisis either.
- duncan202, on 05/29/2009, -0/+6Maybe rich people spend their time making money instead of wasting it on message boards.
- ByteMeAHole, on 05/29/2009, -0/+5The media and fill-in-the-blank: Journalism failed
(There I fixed the title so that it's now correct...) - truck87bp, on 05/29/2009, -1/+6The misinformation on TV has been way too heavy and if TV doesn't realize that we are aware of the manipulation going on, they are full of it.
Question to Big Media: How can you seriously Report Lame or Tilted News in a half hour (20 minutes) segment to the population when the people have spent hours reading everything for half the day and get the real whole story ?
Listen closely, we use and read the Internet to see how bad a job you are really doing. You could say that "you are investigated on a daily basis when we watch the News".
If you've wondered how and why we are forming these opinions now you know. Cats out of the bag.
Its reported that the Net is destroying TV, NOT , the Corporate Owners are destroying TV because they are computer illiterate. Only 12% of America doesn't own a computer you stupid jerks. Thats a pretty small segment your preaching to. Wow, you have a whole 12% believing what you say. Thats Outstanding! - vbullinger, on 05/29/2009, -1/+6Warren Buffett's kind of evil, though. He donates billions to eugenics causes. He may know what's up, but that doesn't stop him from being evil.
- walnutmon, on 05/29/2009, -1/+5I was thinking the same thing.
This is old news to anyone that watches the daily show regularly...
Of course... he's just a comedian. - VitriolAndAngst, on 05/29/2009, -1/+5I'd say the "Goldilocks Syndrome" is a better description. They put out stories that are going to be "just right" to their supporters.
For instance; Since losing most of its public funding and being forced to commercial funding, PBS and National Public Radio, haven't run hard hitting exposes of Acher Daniels Midland, Monsanto, and DuPont. They formerly reported abuses that led to hundreds of millions in fines. Guess who some of their top supporters are?
It isn't just with Financial News. In every other respect, the Main Stream Media (or CorpGov Media), had to be dragged to ALL the important issues of our day.
The War, Health and Safety, Security, Government abuse of the Constitution and Treaties, Economic Security, ... Anything that might affect profits.
I really can't think of any of the really important stories, that I didn't read first on the Internet, and watch with Awe how the media ignored them. In fact, it seems like important news is suppressed or at least buried when they can lead with nonsense.
Just a very few Examples;
Fox News had to go to court and sue two of it's own reporters for trying to release a report on BGH growth hormone getting into the milk that people drink -- despite Industry assurances it wasn't. They actually won in the Supreme court for the right to lie on News. There is no liability or requirement, that News organizations tell us the truth.
Where were the stories about Abu Ghraib? I knew about it 9 months before it was forced into the press -- I'm not doing anything special to be informed. 72 journalists and climbing have been killed in the War on Terror -- more than any war before (actually, combined). Two "accidental" rocket attacks on Al Jazira. How about some news reports of investigators who have been jailed? How about some follow-up that the information that sank Dan Rather's career -- the "crack" team that showed the papers to be forged, came from the White House.
When the Senator with a Page Boy problem finally got outed by an FBI agent -- it was after about 5 years, when he had submitted the information to two newspapers in the St. Petersburg area. They sat on it. The coverage only came after the FBI investigator got fed up and started ranting to the blogosphere.
>> That's just a few examples. I could do this all day. The fact is, the Media is not interested in informing you, or acting as a watchdog for power -- it is entertainment, that only reports challenges to power AFTER your neighbor's dog has suspected the truth for a week. If only to manage how people view the information.
>> The Wall Street collapse was not one Bernie Maddoff -- the whole system was corrupt and Maddoff just stole from the wrong group and was made a token for the press. They STILL are not covering the serious issues that are on the horizon. You could argue that is to keep down a panic -- but you could also say; "where have they been for 8 years?" It wasn't like this happened overnight.
>> If we didn't have an internet, we would have NO CLUE how we are lied to.
And still, we get bloggers on here who constantly call any conspiracy theory crazy, because it hasn't been PROVEN in the Media. Once it eventually becomes common knowledge -- these same bloggers move on to the next topic to claim the "conspiracy theories" are rantings of "tin-foil-hat" wearers. Now, whenever I see a topic get stomped on by the Bury Brigade, I just assume that it's a good lead. - vbullinger, on 05/29/2009, -2/+6Balanced? Not if you step on some very important peoples' toes. Those opinions are filtered out of the "balanced" opinions. You're told what to write and to whom to listen.
- inactive, on 05/29/2009, -6/+10Agreed with amabaie. Very informative as well...
- Demand911Truth, on 05/29/2009, -0/+4FTA:
"As more and more members of the general public feel obliged to watch the financial market, the question increasingly becomes who, exactly, they can look to."
I'll tell you. His name is Dr. Ron Paul. Let's End the Fed. - juankovo, on 05/29/2009, -1/+5Regardless of whether they 'deserve' them according to you, using government force to deprive them of those riches (unless they were illegally obtained, of course) is wrong. http://bit.ly/3iRr7
- kemp34, on 05/29/2009, -1/+4Arguments are limited to one person to use?
- TheInformer, on 05/29/2009, -1/+4Journalism failed.
Well no *****. - bipolarruledout, on 05/29/2009, -0/+3Na Really? I seem to recall an illegal war not too long ago. 90% of "journalism" is pure crap with no other purpose than to sell advertising. It's almost as if they focus group everything before printing or airing it just to make sure it plays well.
- clvngodess, on 05/29/2009, -0/+3WHAT journalism?
- TexanRudeBoy, on 05/29/2009, -0/+3@Tenareth
The VAST, VAST, VAST majority of citizens don't:
A. Use the internet as their primary news source
B. Look at multiple sources
C. Question what they hear
Which is EXACTLY why the system works so well. Corrupt politicians collude with business and the media tells us what they all want us to hear. - P5ycHo, on 05/29/2009, -0/+2Journalism failed on most issues the last 10 years.
- jiggawatt, on 05/29/2009, -0/+2FTA:
"when Wall Street's gargantuan salaries were fueled off a combination of taxpayer dollars and the ill-gotten gains of exotic financial instruments, it starts to seem like many of AIG's money men deserve not retreats and bonuses but fines and jail time."
You think? - LouisCipher777, on 05/29/2009, -0/+2god forbid someone have to edit their world view to match the facts.
- LouisCipher777, on 05/29/2009, -0/+2actually letting them fail is exactly what they need. it trims the fat from the economy while preserving the muscle. And things like bankruptcy aren't really failure, it just means you failed in your present form and need to rethink your business model.
When Ford made its first cars available to the general public, it pushed the horse and buggy companies into oblivion. The owner of the largest one, william durrant, decided that the times they were a-changin, so he founded General Motors. The failure of the horse and buggy brought about the biggest auto company in the country.
When thomas edisen was working on the light bulb, someone asked him, "how do you feel about failing so many times?" he said to the man, "I have not failed even once. I have successfully found a thousand ways NOT to make a light bulb, but I only need to find one way to make it work."
Failure is not nessessarly a bad thing. - ShrikeDeCil, on 05/29/2009, -0/+2Of course not. A crisis is a horrible thing to waste.
New Mortgage Law: Thou shalt have 20% down, mandatory appraisal, mandatory proof of income 4x the mortgage payment.
It's simple. It doesn't take hundreds of pages to describe. It wouldn't require a whole new layer of bureaucracy to enforce. And bank failures -over-mortgages- would be essentially over.
If you want to assist first-time home buyers - you need to be ponying up the money. Not just ordering the banks to do crazy things. There's all sorts of ways to help with that hurdle of reaching that 20% level, but they need to be up front about that appearing on the government's books. Hell, we're flat-out giving people $8000 today for getting a mortgage. That method at least has the virtue of being transparent. - o3man, on 05/30/2009, -0/+2Everything is fine, GM can't fail because everything is fine - YEAH RIGHT!
- mikedoth, on 05/29/2009, -0/+2Sellouts? I donate to them, they bring me news, no ads. The big networks are the sellouts.
- LouisCipher777, on 05/29/2009, -0/+2Too big to fail = too big to exist
-
Show 51 - 90 of 90 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is