Big money controlling news in USA

[Vapymid]

and that violence can if done right.

 

I don't think it can. All it does is replaces one form of corruption with another, which, in time, transforms into the first kind anyway.

 

That said, sometime violence is the only viable option for a society to take if it were to survive.

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

If violence is done right, it can solve the corruption problems we are dealing with today... I can even draw up a plan to do it right, but I won't keep it anywhere but my head because the NSA would try to throw me into a deep dark hole if I did otherwise. (hence why I'm waiting hopefully for the civil war)

[DoNotRemoveBeforeFlight]

Oh goodie, I'm not the only one noticing. But it's not just the news. The media belongs to the corporations, sure, but the politicians also belong to the corporations, the jails belong to the corporations, the judges belong to the corporations, the police belong to the corporations, and just try to deny the workers belong to the corporations, I dare you. Why are we even surprised anymore? Everything belongs to the corporations now. They control enough of our government and media to control us.

At least they can't truly control all of us.

 

But yeah, it's obsession with power and more wealth. What the hell? Can we convince them that the surplus money that they are hoarding has no real value because they're not going to use it anyway? I mean, sure, their kids can inherit (assuming that), but that again has no worth at all. It's just sitting in some vault in the alps or in an excessively secure computer.

 

I hope the world moves on to a system of non-inflatable form of exchange of goods and services, and gets Swiss-cultured (Culture! Not turning into cheese or yoghurt!)

 

 

Ignorant me doesn't look for a related post, but I shall do it here:

Maybe this is for those with a background in Economics.

 

The way our "economics" work now is frigging unsustainable. In the name of development, we are chasing consumerism, real GDP growth, increasing production of obsolete crap, significant leakages of income (by the rich, obviously), and some pointless injections of government expenditure and investments.

 

Sure you can argue that some of us have benefited from infrastructure upgrades, education, healthcare, technology... Sure. But that's still only SOME OF US. It's ironic that USA has the Silicon Valley and some of the world's top-notch educational institutes, which is cool, but the internet still sucks in certain states, and expensive healthcare, racism (or social inequality, if you like), a number of flat-Earthers still exists, underpaid teachers, and schools that overall produce crap students.

 

The drive for growth (or profit) is nowhere close to a long-term prosperity and development.

That gasoline you just pumped into your car may not be from the Arabic oilfields. It could be from a central African country where the land is exploited, groundwater is polluted, and natural gas burned off for no good reason!

That pineapple you might be very well enjoying right now may not be from a "USDA Certified Organic farm", but mixed in from a certain Southeast Asian country that is totally responsible for a hazardous haze.

Back then, the situation in Singapore (where I live, right next to that particular country) was very poor visibility, and even the healthiest guy would choke on the air with just a sniff.

Now imagine the above in your home country. Beverly Hills is not going to save you from this. Even if Elysium were to happen, some angry dudes are gonna invade your lovely space-world.

 

Inflation and debt! These are bullshit. They are man-made and non-recoverable. Just keep printing money to cover it up, will ya? Oh wait, was it to increase liquidity and lower interest rates? No? Oh yeah, you're just paying back the debt with more debt. How clever.

 

Yup, the blue marble is on a crash course to a grey dystopia.

 

 

Anyway, back to the topic.

Mainstream media is, well, like any other corporations, for-profit. Somehow their revenue must come in one way or another. Ads, sponsors, and (big) shady sponsors. Of course, it is to work to their benefit. There's nothing you can't buy with money, right? (Assuming the paper wealth is still guaranteed.) Monsanto pays reporters to speak about how highly "ethical" their farms are, Coca-Cola advertizes Vitamin Water and Minute Maid, and so on.

[Doom Shepherd]

"The corporations control everything!" -- some British subject 400 years ago talking about the Hudson Bay and British East India Companies' influence on the Crown.

[BTGBullseye]

Violence fixed that problem around 250 years ago, and it's taken that long to come back... We just need to do it again, with just as much gusto.

[ThePest179]

Violence fixed that problem around 250 years ago, and it's taken that long to come back... We just need to do it again, with just as much gusto.

 

And in another 250 or less, the same problem crops right up. Animal Farm illustrates this perfectly. Is there really a point?

[BTGBullseye]

Yes, it gets rid of it for 250 years... That's better than letting it stick around and kill off our country.

[Doom Shepherd]

Um, violence didn't actually solve either of those problems.

 

And I'm just going to interject that I've never met anyone who was EAGER for violence who ended up actually being any GOOD at it.

[BTGBullseye]

So the war of independence didn't free us from the tyranny of England? Looks like you've got some reading of history to do...

[ThePest179]

Yes, it gets rid of it for 250 years... That's better than letting it stick around and kill off our country.

 

It will kill the country anyway, the thought of just launching bloody revolutions that may or may not succeed all the time every 250 years or less is just ridiculous! Why not just let it kill the country? That's about the path America is taking, with both parties just throwing dirt on each other, not trying to solve the problems. Can we just face the facts that the country is just going to go down the shitter no matter what we do?

[BTGBullseye]

Except that HISTORY has shown that a civil war will do the opposite of destroy the country... Why does everyone seem to believe that history doesn't apply?

[DoNotRemoveBeforeFlight]

Not applicable to Syria. For now.

Egypt almost went into a full-blown civil war.

 

A civil war may or may not rebuild a country in the sense that it fights fire with fire. Too many damn factors.

Who is leading the charge? Who is supplying the forces? Would the damages (property, infrastructure, environment, and psychological and physical health) be recovered? If so, how long? How would the country be run later? How would the country rebuild its economy and international relations?

 

There are a lot of future implications in this modern age if a civil war were to break out. Hidden and unforeseeable ones, too.

[BTGBullseye]

It's true that nothing is for certain, but one thing I know is that if something doesn't happen soon, this country will soon become the same as the countries that we've been looking down at for so long.

[DoNotRemoveBeforeFlight]

And who's going to lead the country? For a truly direct democratic country like Switzerland, culture must, first and foremost, be corrected. You are getting nowhere near liberalism, freedom, and democracy if the people do not start on the same correct footing. Heck, study the Swiss to the core if you have yet to understand how frigging nice they are.

 

Back to big money and news.

It's great that we have access to alternative news, but they are sometimes unreliable. Sure, you may consider Wikileaks as a news source, but stuff like Gawker isn't exactly the best. Remember, sponsors are everywhere (almost).

And then we have sleepers! Ordinary twitter accounts became 'reporters' out of the blue. Any web analysts (or people like you and me) could have spotted this!

 

Anyway, you would not be in any way influenced by half-truths or bogus news if you simply have a habit of inquiring (or questioning everything). I don't mean becoming paranoid and suspicious, but rather just ask yourself if what you see and hear is credible, consistent, and corroborate with other accounts. Yeah, this sounds right out from your school. CCC is still being reminded again and again within law professions, humanities, and anywhere else that comes in contact with important information. But money just likes to be superior.

 

Let's take the ongoing MH370 saga as an example. While big money may not play a big role in this case, it is truly a test of trust and confidence of information. Malaysia threw its neighbors and China into a wild goose chase before saying,"Hey, shit's not there. It's on the other side!" when M'sia knew it all along. And of course this includes the inconsistency of accounts with authority figures and the M'sia Airlines giving contradictory statements. Then, we have people coming up with wild theories of what happened to the flight with some taking the news for granted. This is thus also a prime example of mindless consumption of news. So this doesn't mean you can take Wikileaks for granted as well. A certain someone almost slipped false info into the archives.

 

How can we prevent big money from feeding crap into the media? As individuals, we can't. As an organization, perhaps, but you would have to deal with stupid defamation and law loopholes. An uprising of the ordinary citizens? Utopian, but possible. But then again, it's uncertain how it would turn out.

 

As for ourselves, you can always choose whether or not to turn on your TV.

[BTGBullseye]

And who's going to lead the country?

We'll figure that out after we remove the corrupt individuals and administrations that are currently in control... That's what voting is for.

 

You keep mentioning wikileaks, but 90% of the information I get on what's happening is first-hand accounts from friends and family members. The other 10% is from actually reading the news from various independent sources. (and I make sure they aren't just referencing each other)

[Vapymid]

And who's going to lead the country?

We'll figure that out after we remove the corrupt individuals and administrations that are currently in control... That's what voting is for.

 

The problem with this is that those who do the initial ridding are not usually keen on submitting themselves to a voting process. You rarely find revolutionaries who do the revolution and then kindly step aside for someone else to become the top dog...

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

Your point?

 

If everyone just sits back and does nothing because they are afraid that something worse will happen, we'll never progress. We'll just sit and stagnate, and die.

[Vapymid]

My point is - by all means, dream of a revolution, just don't count on it leading a utopia, free from corruption and benevolently led by wise statesmen ruling according to popular assent...

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

I never even began to imply that it would, but it can't be worse than a stagnant death.

[ThePest179]

Except that HISTORY has shown that a civil war will do the opposite of destroy the country... Why does everyone seem to believe that history doesn't apply?

 

This is the most bullshit statement I've ever heard. Although it depends on your definition of destroy, I'm pretty sure that throughout history, civil wars are like most regular ones in that they consume a large amount of lives, money, and property. Add this to my previous statements on how this only delays the problem of corruption and stagnation if (and only if) it works the way you think it will.