Tweet
 |
Lately we have received a number of critical notes from iTulip community members about videos and posts that appear to take a political position for or against a particular political party.
We do not want iTulip to devolve into primary a political site that secondarily talks about economics and markets. On the other hand we do we want it to be an economics and markets site that naïvely ignores the influence of national and international politics on the economy and markets.
We could try to treat the economy like some kind of abstract machine, its behavior the result of disinterested internals and inputs and outputs, but that's not how an economy works in the real world, so that approach does not serve the interests of our community. Governments have a profound influence on the economy, and centers of finance have a profound influence on governments. One cannot discuss the relative merits of investing in one asset class or another, or where they are going, without considering politics.
For example, the 1997 Tax Relief Act, among other provisions, gave a married couple in the US the opportunity to earn $500,000 in capital gains tax free on a primary or secondary residence owned for at least two years. Compare this to the tax on capital gains earned by selling gold bullion or gold ETFs. These are classified as "collectibles" and taxed at 28%, the maximum capital gains rate. Which type of asset do you think the US government wants you to own, the one manufactured by an industry with a large and effective lobby or the one manufactured by an industry with a small and ineffective lobby? The one that earns Wall Street investment banks billions of dollars in fees annually or the one that earns them a few hundred million?
Several notes we have received specifically criticize videos that deal with weapons manufacturers and military contractors. Can a site that deals with economics and finance avoid the topic? Here in my area of the US, the military industry has, according to a recent Boston Globe report, pumped over $2.6 billion in the Massachusetts economy over the past year, dwarfing the much publicized biotech industry. Home prices have declined locally due to the declining housing bubble, but likely would have collapsed if not for employment provided by Raytheon and other mil contractors in the area.
MSNBC Still Reports News (did a piece on iTulip back in 1999)
True, many of the videos covering this topic are not very good journalism. But, under the circumstances, they may be the best we'll get. Some, if not instructive, are at least entertaining.
In the words of one professional journalist who works for the mainstream press and advises us, "Newsrooms are more controlled than ever by corporate interests. Reporters don't need to be told what to write–it's in the air. Columnists, either pro or con, will continue taking sides as they have been and workers will continue to adjust, retrain and/or go down the tubes."
Way back when I was a studying journalism in college in the late 1970s, Larry Stites, then national editor of the NYTimes, at a conference we held at the UMass, Amherst, in response to my question about accusations of press bias in coverage of the Vietnam War which were coming to light, told me–and I'm paraphrasing here:
Wherever you have concentrations of political and economic power you have control over the press. So what? What's the alternative, a politburo? In our system you're either on the outside of the system criticizing it and not making money or you're inside, supporting it, and making money. Pick one. Journalism here is the art of using the system's money to point out its problems and abuses without anyone–including your editor–knowing what you're up to. You've got a bullhorn but have to be careful what you say. If you go outside the system, you are talking through a kazoo and can say whatever you want.
 |
Blogs and their variants cover topics that mainstream press reporters and editors cover as best they can within the constraints imposed on them by the system, as they pursue that art of "using the system's money to point out its problems and abuses." Some blogs are high end, doing primary research–performing interviews and original analysis–but they are, from the standpoint of modest reach and the limited credibility conferred on them by lack of brand, still "kazoos." Sometimes the chorus of kazoos can drown out the mainstream press; it is when each is playing well and many are playing together that they are most effective at performing a constructive role in society. Aside from an occasional article, we expect little coverage of the military industrial complex from from well paid professional journalists on the inside (infrequent coverage of a topic is also a measure of compliance) leaving us–if we choose to continue to cover the topic–with kazoos to do so, videos and other stories which may not always meet the journalistic standards we'd like to see. Frontline they ain't, but isn't it better than nothing?
Our community needs to consider politics in our exploration of where our economy has been, where it is now, and where it is going. But not too much politics, and open to the views of all political parties. With theses as our objectives then the questions are, do we have the right balance of political coverage versus economics and finance? And if not, how do we achieve it?
I appreciate your input.
Eric Janszen
Founder & President, iTulip, Inc.
Comment