Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mother Jones Interviews Van Jones

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Mother Jones Interviews Van Jones

    Originally posted by vt View Post
    Obviously we have reached the end of the line on journalism. There are no independent sources of news anymore. Instead we have two warring camps that are propaganda machines for the right and left. No one trusts conventional media of the networks, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, BBC, etc.

    https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/...y-shady-group/

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-1...sian-propagand

    I think about it differently, VT. To me, it's all about which billionaire's propaganda you're getting. So yes, the Washington Post took a hard right turn after Bezos bought it and installed Reagan's Chief of Staff as its publisher. But Bezos also was a never-Trumper. So the paper hit Trump hard. But it does everything to praise evil snakes like Paul Ryan who's trying to abolish Medicare and throw millions of American Elderly out of their homes and onto the streets with no medical care as we speak.

    So that's Bezos...he's a sort of socially liberal, fiscally very conservative, anti Social Security, anti Medicare type of guy and that's what his paper supports. He wants only his kind of establishment Republican to get support, and maybe a very pro-war, anti-working-class 'independent' like Bloomberg or Lieberman too.

    Then there's Rupert Murdoch. He's a billionaire champion of neocon causes. Much more of a hawk. Always pro-Republican. Quite far to the right. More or less socially and fiscally conservative. So you get a Wall Street Journal that reflects his values since he bought it.

    But not every billionaire's there. Some, like John Henry--who owns the Red Sox and the Boston Globe along with the Liverpool FC and some other sports properties, put out a paper that is more or less in line with the Democratic establishment politicians, although he likes the 'centirst' class warriors like Bloomberg too...

    Even your Intercept is run by libertarian billionaire Pierre Omidyar, who thinks that people without money should just be left to die on the sidewalk outside the Emergency Room. He took so much journalistic control away, he scared off Taibbi, but not Greenwald. He also has long and deep financial and operational ties with the CIA, and is an Iranian national, so God only knows what you're getting out of that source. Have fun untangling that mess. Then again, Pando itself got money from Peter Thiel, who's an ultra-right extremist who wants to end democracy and bring autocratic rule to America, so who do you believe?

    It's whacky out there. The gods (billionaires) play games with us we cannot always understand. But it is always for their benefit and their amusement, never ours.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Mother Jones Interviews Van Jones

      Originally posted by dcarrigg View Post
      It's whacky out there. The gods (billionaires) play games with us we cannot always understand. But it is always for their benefit and their amusement, never ours.
      Thanks, dcarrigg. I'm just about ready to take up drinking.

      Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Mother Jones Interviews Van Jones

        Originally posted by dcarrigg View Post
        It's whacky out there.
        “The corporate media leaves such an enormous vacuum,” she said. “They go to the small circle of pundits who know so little about so much."

        http://forward.com/culture/339517/ho...-democracy-now

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Mother Jones Interviews Van Jones

          Originally posted by shiny! View Post
          Thanks, dcarrigg. I'm just about ready to take up drinking.
          Hahaha...oh no! That's my vice!

          But in all honesty, there's not many other reasons I can think of why billionaires all snatched up the press over the last 10-20 years. Especially dying print media. They're losing money on it, at least on one side of the ledger. And I take it as axiomatic that billionaires are likely to be neither stupid nor altruistic people.

          That is, I take it for granted that billionaires are very likely to be very clever and very greedy. Even in their giving, they love to give to their own foundations for their own (tax-exempt!) purposes. Very clever. Very greedy.

          Why is it, then, that they are snapping up even money-losing media companies everywhere they can? Is it just to ensure there's an educated populace (as they actively lobby to privatize and dismantle public schools)? No. I don't think so.

          Is it because of good old fashioned nostalgia for the old paper and print? Coming from Bezos, the guy who says he wants to eliminate retail shopping from the face of the planet? No, he doesn't strike me as the type with a penchant for the 'good ol' days.'

          And why, oh why, would he put Ronald Reagan's chief of staff in charge of the WaPost right after he grabbed it up? The guy knows nothing about publishing a newspaper. But he does know a hell of a lot about politics.

          So...clearly there's politics afoot. The question is, what's personal, what's business, and what's political, and how clear are those lines?

          When Peter Thiel used Hulk Hogan to destroy Gawker's media empire (which included Deadspin, Gizmodo, Jalopnik, Jezebel, Kotaku and Lifehacker, which are now part of Univision, which is owned by billionaire Haim Saban, a Clinton guy). Ostensibly he did it because some reporter at Gawker outed Thiel as gay, and destroying the company was his revenge.

          How many other petty, personal wars are happening in the media all around us all the time that we don't know about?

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Mother Jones Interviews Van Jones

            That's a few western states - CA, OR, WA, and AZ along with DC and NY. It's a good chunk of the country. Maybe 15% of it. But it's not all of it. Nobody else is even headed for a penny over $11 an hour, never mind higher. And there is still time to cancel those proposed phase-ins.

            The other 25 states are predominantly mid-sized states and are set to have min wages somewhere between $7.50 and $11 per hour between now and 2018, which makes sense.
            To put that in perspective, TX, VA, WI, PA, ND, SD, OK, NV, MN, KY, KS, IA, IN, ID, AL, LA, MS, WY and GA all have minimum wages at $7.25--the lowest it can go. That's closer to 20% of the country.

            So 80% of the population are above minimum wage according to the above?


            From what I can work out the National minimum wage was set in 2009. This means the increases in 29 states have occurred since then, the majority in very recent times. The trend appears upward. If it's a vote winner then most politicians sooner or later will suggest it in their platform. It's harder to maintain a lower minimum wage when the state next door to you has a higher one no?

            Highly unlikely. The market has been a bloodbath for anything green all month. Investment is rapidly leaving green energy projects. It's more likely the Obama green energy bump will have been like the Carter one, the Republican congress will strip out the incentives, and the industry will die again, as it did after Reagan ripped the solar panels off the Whitehouse.
            One month of market movements is not enough to base a judgement on yet. I will not be surprised if you are right. But it's not decided yet.

            You are assuming the US, its corporate leaders, and/or its politicians actually care about the majority of the populace or the middle or working classes generally. They don't. Not at all. They don't care about what country you're from. Only your pedigree and the numbers in the your bank account. When they meet in Davos, they dream of erasing national lines. And they feel worse for poor Asian labor than they do their people back home, who they think are fat, lazy slobs who have it too good and don't know what's good for themselves.

            Believe me, nobody is looking out for any US interests other than the interests of US millionaires and better. The rest of us, well:

            I believe you. Billionaire plutocrats justifying the maintenance of their wealth by claiming to be philanthropists(tax efficient ones!) or global egalitarians (Soros) don't give a toss about the average poor of the US. However, it still comes down to votes in the end. Eventually some politician, maybe even a billionaire one like Trump, gets to realise or appreciate that inequality is THE ISSUE and that narrowing it will be a vote winner. Either that or the fear that pitchforks will come out will provide focus at some point.


            And while I always preferred (and still do) the Dead Kennedy's to the Sex Pistols......here's some post punk Johnny Rotten

            Last edited by llanlad2; November 27, 2016, 05:50 PM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Mother Jones Interviews Van Jones

              Originally posted by dcarrigg View Post
              I think about it differently, VT. To me, it's all about which billionaire's propaganda you're getting. So yes, the Washington Post took a hard right turn after Bezos bought it and installed Reagan's Chief of Staff as its publisher. ....So that's Bezos...he's a sort of socially liberal, fiscally very conservative, anti Social Security, anti Medicare type of guy and that's what his paper supports.
              Then there's Rupert Murdoch. He's a billionaire champion of neocon causes. Much more of a hawk. Always pro-Republican. Quite far to the right. More or less socially and fiscally conservative. So you get a Wall Street Journal that reflects his values since he bought it.
              I didn't know any of that. I guess I just wasn't paying attention.

              Please do more. How about the New York Times?

              National Review / Mother Jones?

              The Atlantic? The New Yorker?

              Rolling Stone?

              I know their intended audiences, and some of their histories. I don't know which ones are solvent, which have big pockets behind them, which are just scraping by.
              If the thunder don't get you then the lightning will.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Mother Jones Interviews Van Jones

                Originally posted by Ellen Z View Post
                I didn't know any of that. I guess I just wasn't paying attention.
                Matt Taibbi's latest on the Washington Post's article concerning Russian influence on American media and oligarchs buying media is a good place to start.

                http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...usting-w452543

                The scariest thing to me is the Post article got 15 thousand comments.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Mother Jones Interviews Van Jones

                  Originally posted by Thailandnotes View Post
                  Matt Taibbi's latest on the Washington Post's article concerning Russian influence on American media and oligarchs buying media is a good place to start.

                  http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...usting-w452543

                  The scariest thing to me is the Post article got 15 thousand comments.
                  What surprises me is why anyone is surprised. The Post and The Times have been competing with each other to serve as the PR wing of the cloak and dagger set since the 50s. For God's sake people, Ben Bradlee was for all intents and purposes a card-carrying agent. He was Dick Helms' best pal since the two were in short pants. He was Cord Meyer's brother-in-law. His wife was James Angleton's sister. And both Angleton and Bradlee were in Mary Meyer's house looking for her diary within hours after her still unsolved murder in Rock Creek park.

                  Jesus, it's like groundhog day. Why do we have to keep treading the same ground over and over again? I keep teaching, hoping, praying, lighting candles that someone, somewhere around here will get it. Carl Bernstein pulled the covers back in '77. They're just reverting to type. Bezos is too smart by half here and doesn't have a third of the Graham's old-money discretion and so we see transparent efforts like the one Taibbi highlights.

                  But really, what do you folks expect?

                  Why would the powers that be let Bezos buy their paper and turn it into an actual news organization? When Bill Moyers offered Harry Guggenheim $10 million above the asking price for Newsday after leading the magazine from dead last to winning two Pulitzers, 31 other journalism awards and the highest page count and profitability in its history, Harry told him to stuff it and sold to the conservative Times-Mirror company. I can't find the quote, but Guggenheim said something to the effect that he would rather take a loss than let some left-winger control one of the most influential papers in the country. So it's definitely not about the money.

                  THE CIA AND THE MEDIA

                  How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up

                  BY CARL BERNSTEIN

                  In 1953, Joseph Alsop, then one of America’s leading syndicated columnists, went to the Philippines to cover an election. He did not go because he was asked to do so by his syndicate. He did not go because he was asked to do so by the newspapers that printed his column. He went at the request of the CIA.

                  Alsop is one of more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty‑five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services—from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go‑betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors without‑portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested in the derring‑do of the spy business as in filing articles; and, the smallest category, full‑time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.

                  The history of the CIA’s involvement with the American press continues to be shrouded by an official policy of obfuscation and deception for the following principal reasons:

                  ■ The use of journalists has been among the most productive means of intelligence‑gathering employed by the CIA. Although the Agency has cut back sharply on the use of reporters since 1973 primarily as a result of pressure from the media), some journalist‑operatives are still posted abroad.

                  ■ Further investigation into the matter, CIA officials say, would inevitably reveal a series of embarrassing relationships in the 1950s and 1960s with some of the most powerful organizations and individuals in American journalism.

                  Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were Williarn Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Tirne Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry Bingham Sr. of the LouisviIle Courier‑Journal, and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps‑Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald‑Tribune.

                  By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc.

                  The CIA’s use of the American news media has been much more extensive than Agency officials have acknowledged publicly or in closed sessions with members of Congress. The general outlines of what happened are indisputable; the specifics are harder to come by. CIA sources hint that a particular journalist was trafficking all over Eastern Europe for the Agency; the journalist says no, he just had lunch with the station chief. CIA sources say flatly that a well‑known ABC correspondent worked for the Agency through 1973; they refuse to identify him. A high‑level CIA official with a prodigious memory says that the New York Times provided cover for about ten CIA operatives between 1950 and 1966; he does not know who they were, or who in the newspaper’s management made the arrangements...
                  Last edited by Woodsman; November 29, 2016, 09:13 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Mother Jones Interviews Van Jones

                    http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16...l-crying-wolf/

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Mother Jones Interviews Van Jones

                      If we had a "best of iTulip" or "2016 reel" I would nominate this one for best of the year. Outstanding in every respect. Sharing this one widely!

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Mother Jones Interviews Van Jones

                        Woodsman and JK,

                        I agree this is a great article. However I posted the same article under "Trump To Win" on 11/19/16 at 1:32 AM eastern.

                        It's always good to repeat it though in case others missed it

                        "11-19-16, 01:32 AM
                        Thread: Trump to win?

                        by vt

                        Replies
                        1,703
                        Views
                        99,815


                        Re: Trump to win?

                        Shiny, the destroyer just got his *$$ annihilated:

                        http://i.imgur.com/rN8STVb.gif

                        This is useful when dealing with his type:

                        http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16...l-crying-wolf/


                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Mother Jones Interviews Van Jones

                          You gave me something to smile about with this one vt.

                          Okay, okay. Guilty as charged. And spoken as a true Scotsman! Careful or you and jk might be mistaken for a, what was it, "krayon klub kids" member? Perish the thought!

                          Anyway, we're through the looking glass now. Season's Greetings as we used to say back in the 20th Century.


                          Originally posted by vt View Post
                          Woodsman and JK,

                          I agree this is a great article. However I posted the same article under "Trump To Win" on 11/19/16 at 1:32 AM eastern.

                          It's always good to repeat it though in case others missed it

                          "11-19-16, 01:32 AM
                          Thread: Trump to win?

                          by vt

                          Replies
                          1,703
                          Views
                          99,815


                          Re: Trump to win?

                          Shiny, the destroyer just got his *$$ annihilated:

                          http://i.imgur.com/rN8STVb.gif

                          This is useful when dealing with his type:

                          http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16...l-crying-wolf/


                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Mother Jones Interviews Van Jones

                            Originally posted by vt View Post
                            Woodsman and JK,

                            I agree this is a great article. However I posted the same article under "Trump To Win" on 11/19/16 at 1:32 AM eastern.

                            It's always good to repeat it though in case others missed it

                            "11-19-16, 01:32 AM
                            Thread: Trump to win?

                            by vt

                            Replies
                            1,703
                            Views
                            99,815


                            Re: Trump to win?

                            Shiny, the destroyer just got his *$$ annihilated:

                            http://i.imgur.com/rN8STVb.gif

                            This is useful when dealing with his type:

                            http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16...l-crying-wolf/


                            sorry i missed it when you posted it. i came across it via another blog.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Mother Jones Interviews Van Jones

                              Thanks for bringing it up, as some may have missed it. It's always a good idea to post something this good. No need to apologize

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Mother Jones Interviews Van Jones

                                Originally posted by Woodsman View Post

                                But really, what do you folks expect?
                                "We don't have state owned media in the United States, but if we did, how would it be any different?" Amy Goodman.

                                For the most part, I think you're preaching to the choir on this one.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X