Obama Administration Scandals

[lektrode]

Re: Obama Administration Scandals

...
..........
.......
The President certainly seems to know everything instantly when it comes to killing Osama Bin Laden and announcing his victory.

But he doesn't seem to know anything about Benghazi, the IRS, or journalistic surveillance.

Directly/indirectly culpable OR failing to lead/manage his own out of control organization is completely unacceptable.

I'd like the give the President the benefit of the doubt.

I think his complete lack of executive/management experience except for his on the job training since becoming President is probably the simplest and most likely answer.

It's not apologizing for the President, in fact I think of this whole cluster of events as further evidence of the embarrassment of electing a person woefully unqualified to fill the role....

precsisely - coupled with the MSM's failure to focus critically on _anything_ that doesnt advance the(ir, his, the handlers) agenda.

i also think its the 60's holdover ideological imperative of the anti-military-industrial complex that contributes to a lack of real interest in the 'defense' perogative - ie: the hippies of the 60's are now running the show and would rather focus on social issues, so simply dont pay enough attention to critical strategic issues - why would they? - when they get much more favorable attention (esp from the 'activist wing' of the lamestream media) on issues like 'marriage equality', gender orientation in the .mil, the .edu-industrial complex and 'jobs saved/created' (in the unionized sectors) - again with little critical focus by the media - all the while giving away the treasury to bail out TBTF, printing money with abandon, as it guts the value of savings/pensions - even to the extent of raiding/giving-away the FICA funding and calling it a 'taxcut'

I do agree with this - it is just that my view is that the real problem isn't media ownership concentration. It is that the US government no longer even pretends to act on behalf of its constituency.

The media concentration you speak of is a direct result of deregulation, much as the GFC and TBTF banks were also a result of deregulation.

Thus my view that breaking up the media concentration is good, but is not going to happen until the US government part is fixed - and that in turn is not going to get fixed barring the rise of a tyrant or some similarly cataclysmic political event.

the most effective 'fix' - IMHO - cue broken record - would be: TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS
as the political class has NO INCENTIVE WHATSOEVER to change a GD thing.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Obama Administration Scandals

I do agree with this - it is just that my view is that the real problem isn't media ownership concentration. It is that the US government no longer even pretends to act on behalf of its constituency.

The media concentration you speak of is a direct result of deregulation, much as the GFC and TBTF banks were also a result of deregulation.

Thus my view that breaking up the media concentration is good, but is not going to happen until the US government part is fixed - and that in turn is not going to get fixed barring the rise of a tyrant or some similarly cataclysmic political event.

I strongly believe political reform(REAL campaign finance reform) has to occur in order to achieve any REAL mass media and financial/economic reform.

I do often wonder about the increasingly blatant disregard of government actions towards the constituency.

It's quite shocking.....but isn't that a symptom or indicator of the problem(s), rather than THE problem itself?

And I do agree that media ownership concentration is a direct result of deregulation(90's) same as the FIRE sector.

To me the solution is:

Political Reform(single issue campaign finance laser focused) via a non-partisan, internet enabled group capable of leveraging social media very effectively and partnered with some Saatchi & Saatchi level of brand/movement management, possessing a small movement leadership group that is heavily vetted against compromise risk and is politically in the middle/centre or neutral. Once that is achieved, it's back to battling over partisan issues without interference from special interests.

To me, a slick internet and social media focused non-partisan campaign that accurately and effectively portrays every politician who accepts special interest money as a traitor/criminal would be hard for the two parties, traditional mass media, and special interests to defend against.

Learning from the failures of Tea Party and OWS, both suffering from the effects of being rudderless/leaderless and unable to cohesively respond to successful efforts to co-opt, deflect, and attack Ta Party and OWS such a movement would require a small and defined leadership group, steering committee, spokesperson/people. A leadership group that clearly comes from the centre of the political spectrum and is crystal clear single issue focused with defensible integrity.

Finance/Economic reform:

We need effective regulation, but we also need to see existing regulation actually enforced. Post 9/11 a huge amount of resources in federal law enforcement dropped everything to hunt terrorists, they need to get back to investigating bankers without the risk of political interference and career suicide.

Mass Media reform:

Propaganda.com Inc needs to be broken up.


To me, the force-ranked priority of work is:

1)political reform(single issue of special interest money removed from politics)

2)finance/economic reform(throw some bankers in jail, far stricter enforcement moving forward, and tidy up effective regulation)

3)mass media reform(break up Propaganda.com Inc.)

Just my 0.02c

[c1ue]

Re: Obama Administration Scandals

I strongly believe political reform(REAL campaign finance reform) has to occur in order to achieve any REAL mass media and financial/economic reform.

I do often wonder about the increasingly blatant disregard of government actions towards the constituency.

It's quite shocking.....but isn't that a symptom or indicator of the problem(s), rather than THE problem itself?

My view is that politics follows many of Newton's laws: action and reaction, but more importantly (political) force = mass x acceleration.

The difference in politics is there are no physics based limitations such as entropy, conservation of energy, etc etc.

The point being: the pF behind the present system is incredibly powerful. I see nothing whatsoever on the horizon, under the radar, or what have you which has any promise whatsoever of achieving sufficient counter pF to reverse our present political course.

Some might say that we might get a miracle like Teddy Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson, or FDR. My view is that this is exceedingly unlikely. One reason these individuals came into power was the essentially fragmented nature of American society in the past. Due to communications and travel lag, as well as the largely inward looking nature of most state economies, there were large constituencies with dramatically different views (i.e. many smaller but different vectored pFs).

Today, the American political and economic elites are all one and the same. They go to the same parties, they own houses in the same cities, they go to the same schools, etc etc.

IMO, the only way to break this vicious cycle of pF - which we have seen in aristocratic elites in Europe and Asia, in Communism in the second generation, in late Rome, in late Athens, etc etc is an eventual peasant uprising, usually harnessed by a demagogue.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Obama Administration Scandals

or a Rafael Correa...

"5 of the 7 private networks were owned by the banks"

in this case the video beats the transcript...

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?...&jumival=10225

[vt]

Re: Obama Administration Scandals

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...on_729191.html

"The fish rots from the head"

[vt]

Re: Obama Administration Scandals

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...942e_blog.html

[vt]

Re: Obama Administration Scandals

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...son-91871.html

[shiny!]

Re: Obama Administration Scandals

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...son-91871.html

There's been precious few reporters like her since Watergate. By "like her" I mean "willing to investigate rather than simply relay Administration talking points".

Mind-boggling how the majority of the MSM handles the current administration with kid gloves and considers themselves neutral, while one reporter in their midst "questions authority" and is thereby considered "partison".

[lektrode]

Re: Obama Administration Scandals

There's been precious few reporters like her since Watergate. By "like her" I mean "willing to investigate rather than simply relay Administration talking points".

Mind-boggling how the majority of the MSM handles the current administration with kid gloves and considers themselves neutral, while one reporter in their midst "questions authority" and is thereby considered "partison".

+1
or how they simply IGNORE what isnt accomodative if not complimentary to The Agenda.
beginning with the election of 2008.

where they facilitated (i would say 'threw') the election of The Most Inexperienced and Unqualified 'affirmative action' candidate in the history of The US.

all one has to do to confirm all this is to read any of the big city newspapers = a daily confirmation of the propaganda machine in full control - and the tv news seems to get all their content from simply scanning that days newspapers!
with the small town rags getting theirs on the following daze.

leading one to conclude there is apparently only One Source of news for most of them

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Obama Administration Scandals

Break up the "heaps of options, but no real choice" media?

A modern day Ma Bell bust up?

Or regulation limiting media ownership with a divestiture date set for a few years out?

But even IF it were to happen(and IF most agreed it would be a good thing) the same battle might have to be fought all over again when we see the next generation "Battle for the Living Room".

Apple, Samsung, Amazon, Google, Sony, and Microsoft are positioning themselves focusing on overlapping facets of the living room experience.

Apple and Samsung seem like direct competitors over hardware/platform in the living room

Sony and Microsoft seem like they are in a deathmatch for the game console(and TV/living room internet)

Amazon seems to be about the least malignant(although I'm a bit biased having worked with them WAY back in the day)

Google owns THE search engine, 1 of 2 mobile OS platforms, Youtube, and will surely play a significant role in the future living room.

Is the "Battle for the Living Room" an overstatement?

I wonder if it will play a significant role in how freedom and diversity(or the decline of it) on the internet plays out in the future?

Are we dealing with a multi-tiered problem?

Lack of journalistic diversity/credibility combined with declining options of who we let into our living room(options meaning the number of owners hiding behind the curtain in the mass media and interface OZ)

[c1ue]

Re: Obama Administration Scandals

But even IF it were to happen(and IF most agreed it would be a good thing) the same battle might have to be fought all over again when we see the next generation "Battle for the Living Room".

Apple, Samsung, Amazon, Google, Sony, and Microsoft are positioning themselves focusing on overlapping facets of the living room experience.

I can't say that I agree.

Living room - i.e. televisions, while there may be a struggle going on for the display, the content is not something which either Apple or Samsung play a significant role in.

Sony and Microsoft - again, while there is both content and platform, the entire sphere is entertainment. Even disregarding that console sales are drooping (and likely will continue to do so). More importantly, I have grave doubts on how much serious messaging is conveyed in this sphere. I mean, you can slip all sorts of messaging into entertainment involving people, but it is a bit harder when the top console games consist primarily of shooting things.

Amazon - my view is Amazon is more an enabler than the primary driver. Amazon's online business strategy is clearly to be the back office operations, not the product mix decider. This would seem to be more neutral, although arguably Amazon has had negative effects in such spheres as e-readers/content.

As for Google - owning the search engine gives Google enormous influence on product sales. It is still far from clear how much influence the search engine has on opinion, however. At least, to my knowledge, there isn't that much Adwords type pay for play in non-product interactions. Google does accelerate the balkanization of opinion on the Internet, but it is (IMO) arguable whether or not this would have occurred anyway.

As for Android - again IMO I don't see this as a credible play. Android as a free OS has had an enormous impact, but in reality the money being made is being made by Samsung. Samsung at this juncture is making almost literally all the profit in Android handset sales - and has more than enough market share to split off Android and make Samdroid (or whatever), at which point Google's benefit in Samsung's mobile share is easily abrogated (if desired).

As for youtube and what not - there's lots of views, and there's some money, but still not clear what overall net influence there will be. Among other things, Google is first and foremost a profit making company. Taking strong political and or societal stands is probably the single largest risk method of empowering competitors - I just don't see that happening.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Obama Administration Scandals

I can't say that I agree.

Living room - i.e. televisions, while there may be a struggle going on for the display, the content is not something which either Apple or Samsung play a significant role in.

They're not producing content, but they will effectively be "the last mile" in digital content delivery even if it's just display. Recall the battles of the 90's with Microsoft being sued regarding preferential treatment of Internet Explorer. Subtle, but potential to have a fair bit of influence, if not control.


Sony and Microsoft - again, while there is both content and platform, the entire sphere is entertainment. Even disregarding that console sales are drooping (and likely will continue to do so). More importantly, I have grave doubts on how much serious messaging is conveyed in this sphere. I mean, you can slip all sorts of messaging into entertainment involving people, but it is a bit harder when the top console games consist primarily of shooting things.

Gaming/entertainment consoles are the last big profit centres for both Microsoft and Sony. Microsoft's influence and control in the OS and application space seems to be on perpetual decline, same for Sony's TV and electronics business. Gaming consoles is it, and it's in the best interest of both parties to gain traction in the living room and expand to being the hub of it. A superficial look at specs of both future platforms shows diverging plans and some more aggressive experimentation.

With the decline of the PC and the rise of mobile phones/tablets the next logical step is the merge of TV/internet for IP content delivery. Microsoft and Sony are key players here.

Does a clone PC maker have much/any influence over it's product owner....of course not.

But the opportunities when your network base is in the many millions and the primary purpose is as the entertainment hub provides far greater opportunities for influence.

Amazon - my view is Amazon is more an enabler than the primary driver. Amazon's online business strategy is clearly to be the back office operations, not the product mix decider. This would seem to be more neutral, although arguably Amazon has had negative effects in such spheres as e-readers/content.

I would agree. My old company seems to be focused on physical product delivery. The UPS of the internet.

There is scope for influence in the digital print content space due to volume and traction(Amazon's physical book business is crashing, while total book volume, physical & digital, is actually climbing)

What's interesting about Amazon is stuff like this:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...m_cr_pr_sims_t

Amazon is experimenting with it's own vertically integrated content production/distribution, and it's not a one off:

http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/0...94S0E820130529

Nothing nefarious, but my strong suspicions are that the entire effort by Amazon in the strange direction of entertainment content production is to experiment with new retail product placement.

Think:
1st Gen awkward cutaways to product sponsors in 1950's
2nd Gen traditional TV commercial breaks in content
3rd Gen product placement in content
4th Gen far more sophisticated product placement integration opportunities/strategies combined with personalized m&A

Nothing nefarious there, but there is not much that separates retail marketing/advertising and consumer perception shaping with nation/state or special interest propaganda that could be less benign.


As for Google - owning the search engine gives Google enormous influence on product sales. It is still far from clear how much influence the search engine has on opinion, however. At least, to my knowledge, there isn't that much Adwords type pay for play in non-product interactions. Google does accelerate the balkanization of opinion on the Internet, but it is (IMO) arguable whether or not this would have occurred anyway.

In some respects I see Google as the new Microsoft. Making huge money, but not necessarily able to make the leap from one massive profit centre to the next.

The biggest issue I have with Google is their "Don't be evil", which seems to have unofficially shifted to "Don't be unprofitable" which is OK, as long as you're transparent about it.

As for Android - again IMO I don't see this as a credible play. Android as a free OS has had an enormous impact, but in reality the money being made is being made by Samsung. Samsung at this juncture is making almost literally all the profit in Android handset sales - and has more than enough market share to split off Android and make Samdroid (or whatever), at which point Google's benefit in Samsung's mobile share is easily abrogated (if desired).

As for youtube and what not - there's lots of views, and there's some money, but still not clear what overall net influence there will be. Among other things, Google is first and foremost a profit making company. Taking strong political and or societal stands is probably the single largest risk method of empowering competitors - I just don't see that happening.

I would agree that the future of new media and ownership of the living room is unclear, but there is considerable room for malignant behavior. What I find troubling are warning signs such as preferential treatment of data delivery as well as delivery speed.

A preferred message can be delivered better/faster/cheaper than a non-preferred message...just one example of how the living room and the players jockeying for position can shape us.

Where I would disagree is that scale = power(as has been with the likes of Google, the others I've listed in their respective categories, and especially the traditional mass media "Big Six") and power is not always used appropriately and benignly.....as we have been seeing with the "Big Six".

[c1ue]

Re: Obama Administration Scandals

They're not producing content, but they will effectively be "the last mile" in digital content delivery even if it's just display. Recall the battles of the 90's with Microsoft being sued regarding preferential treatment of Internet Explorer. Subtle, but potential to have a fair bit of influence, if not control.

Last mile in cable television and internet is one thing, but last mile in terms of displaying standard content - a little different, no? Cable television allows lockout of alternate content, but so far I don't see much capability to lock out content from a TV perspective. As for internet - Microsoft's wresting of the 'last mile' in browsers doesn't seem to have done them much good against Google.

Gaming/entertainment consoles are the last big profit centres for both Microsoft and Sony. Microsoft's influence and control in the OS and application space seems to be on perpetual decline, same for Sony's TV and electronics business. Gaming consoles is it, and it's in the best interest of both parties to gain traction in the living room and expand to being the hub of it. A superficial look at specs of both future platforms shows diverging plans and some more aggressive experimentation.

With the decline of the PC and the rise of mobile phones/tablets the next logical step is the merge of TV/internet for IP content delivery. Microsoft and Sony are key players here.

Does a clone PC maker have much/any influence over it's product owner....of course not.

But the opportunities when your network base is in the many millions and the primary purpose is as the entertainment hub provides far greater opportunities for influence.

Xbox - it is debatable if they have earned a lifetime profit for Microsoft. They're kind of making money now, but they lost huge, huge sums of it early on. Let's not forget it was launched in 2002, and didn't earn a full year profit until 2007-2008.

Sony did make a lot of money with its Playstation early on, but more recently this luster has largely disappeared.

More importantly - there has been zero bleedover from the console games to the PC world. PC sales were never significantly threatened by console sales despite significant efforts in that direction.

Thus while I understand what you're trying to say, I cannot say that I agree that consoles are in any way a strategic benefit for IP content delivery outside of the IP they presently deliver: games. People just don't use their consoles for anything but gaming.

Nothing nefarious, but my strong suspicions are that the entire effort by Amazon in the strange direction of entertainment content production is to experiment with new retail product placement.

Think:
1st Gen awkward cutaways to product sponsors in 1950's
2nd Gen traditional TV commercial breaks in content
3rd Gen product placement in content
4th Gen far more sophisticated product placement integration opportunities/strategies combined with personalized m&A

Nothing nefarious there, but there is not much that separates retail marketing/advertising and consumer perception shaping with nation/state or special interest propaganda that could be less benign.

I agree Amazon is trying, but it does seem that there are far too many players - both large and small - for Amazon to realistically be able to make headway as the 'next generation' product promotion platform. And really, the money always has been in the picks and shovels, not in the gold mining. Much less risk and competition that way. After all, for every Breakfast at Tiffany's, there are dozens of really crappy films that don't do anything in terms of building a product brand. 'Sponsored' entertainment has to entertain first.

As for nation state - the problem is really generational. At present the demographics that rely on the Internet for their information and perceptions are not the demographics which actually have any power.

In some respects I see Google as the new Microsoft. Making huge money, but not necessarily able to make the leap from one massive profit centre to the next.

The biggest issue I have with Google is their "Don't be evil", which seems to have unofficially shifted to "Don't be unprofitable" which is OK, as long as you're transparent about it.

Well, it was a nice line anyway. Google is exactly like Microsoft: they dominate one area completely and make all their money there.

I would agree that the future of new media and ownership of the living room is unclear, but there is considerable room for malignant behavior. What I find troubling are warning signs such as preferential treatment of data delivery as well as delivery speed.

A preferred message can be delivered better/faster/cheaper than a non-preferred message...just one example of how the living room and the players jockeying for position can shape us.

Where I would disagree is that scale = power(as has been with the likes of Google, the others I've listed in their respective categories, and especially the traditional mass media "Big Six") and power is not always used appropriately and benignly.....as we have been seeing with the "Big Six".

I don't think we disagree that power is not always used appropriately and benignly. If anything, my view is considerably more negative than yours.

My view has always been that the powers that be - even in the so-called eras where individual liberties, press freedom and focus, and so forth were better - have always skewed the system for their own benefit. The post Civil War era, particularly from the 1870s to World War I - seems like a 3rd world prequel to what we're seeing now, only of course we're far better off due to a generally higher level of wealth than before.

All I can say is - all things considered, the Big Six are nothing compared to the TBTF. My druthers are to resolve that problem, then worry about the small fry.

[Woodsman]

Re: Obama Administration Scandals

This was an interesting conversation and I was waiting for someone to touch upon this directly, but no joy. Does anyone have a handle on "operation mockingbird?" Is there any reason to suspect this is not going on right now, albeit in a far more sophisticated manner?

[lektrode]

Re: Obama Administration Scandals

.....As for internet - Microsoft's wresting of the 'last mile' in browsers doesn't seem to have done them much good against Google.
...........
....
Sony did make a lot of money with its Playstation early on, but more recently this luster has largely disappeared.
.....
...... all things considered, the Big Six are nothing compared to the TBTF. My druthers are to resolve that problem, then worry about the small fry.

+1
sony went south when they bought into hollywierd (attempted to vertically integrate into content)
and TBTF Inc. has screwed The Rest of US by vertically integrating the .gov

while 'big media' merely distracts our attention and profits from doing so

its all one BIG vicious circle.

and i still say its the lib-dem penchant for BIG government that enables it all.

TERM LIMITS for congress is what it will take to fix it, since the political class shows no intention whatsoever of changing a GD thing.