Occupy Wall Street

yeah...i wish it were shocking that the us press isn't reporting this information.
but i may just be cynical about the meaninglessness of the term free press. it's much more oriented around the orchestration of consent for the existing order, no matter what it does, no matter what the problems it creates through corruption or incompetence or paralysis or a zippy combination of all three.

 

We don't really have a free press, at least as far as the establishment media goes. One doesn't get to be a A-list journalist in the United States by speaking truth to power because in some way or another, power is who decides who becomes an A-list journalist. Journalism in the United States seems to exist primarily to make money and protect those who currently have power, and if you look at the parent companies of the major networks, it reads like a who's who of people who would lose power and money if OWS gets any of its concerns met.

 

I'm not sure we do really any more either, but I'm still grateful for the BBC. At least there is some balance.

 

Also:


http://www.time.com/time/magazine

 

For commercial reasons or censorship, do you think? After all, many Americans aren't interested in non-US news.

 

dont know how bvh saw this, but glenn greenwald was tweeting it this afternoon and wrote that he found it revealing of the editors' attitude toward the us readership. the other element, which is obvious but still interesting, is the avoidance of the word revolution on the cover connected with the inspiration for the occupation movement--25 january. the substitution of some banal self-help cover is typical. we in the state are not at all well-served by the corporate press. time has long been a repellent magazine politically.

 

But Americans can still connect dots.

 

I must admit, I'm confused too.

What part of the constitution prevents someone from sourcing materials from the cheapest supplier?

 

it may well be that the occupation is building on a split in infotainment sourcing patterns, and appeals to people who venture outside the dominant american media shell on grounds that are different from such appeal as it has among folk who live inside that shell. people inside the shell might find ways to route their ideas of what the occupation is or represents (hard to say whats more important or if the distinction matters) through the frame of "legitimate opinion" where others might be more inclined to see that frame as arbitrary. which it is. but i digress. maybe the occupation is as much about a breakdown in media hegemony as anything else.

 

No "maybe" about it in my mind. This game can't be won playing by rules set by the media - the media is part of the problem.

 

twitter is a strange way to watch things happen. but it's a really useful information source, depending on how you use it of course. there are people who seem to have entire interior lives on twitter. i dont really get it. anyway, it's not like the net isn't dominated by conventional media outlets. they're just not all in one place. it's the crossing of frames that's the key, not their absence. on the other hand, on egypt in particular, the us media has largely been a joke. cnn had good positions around tahrir while they were there. and they have mona eltawhey, who's smart and in the middle of things. but, in the main, a joke, when you compare it to sources like jaladiyya and some of the better blogs (the arabist, juan cole, etc.)...not to mention the guardian and al jazeera. it's odd how much better the guardian is on the occupation than anything in the us, ain't it?

 

I prefer the government to do just as I said earlier; to protect our rights and freedoms under the Constitution. If that means keeping American corporations accountable, so be it.

 

Where were we again? Oh yeah, OWS

LA Occupy Movement told to disband by Monday.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162...leave-camp-monday/?tag=cbsnewsLeadStoriesArea

Not to be outdone by law enforcement:
Woman pepper sprays other Black Friday shoppers

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501363_162-57331142/woman-pepper-sprays-other-black-friday-shoppers/?tag=pop;stories

 

The 99%, scrambling to buy those corporate products. But wait, the corporations are the bad guys and we, the consumers, are the victims. It's like saying it's the bartenders fault that you're an alcoholic.

 

Time Warner got greedy and bought AOL, and since magazines are "passe" they find themselves having to cut news department budgets like CNN.

It's still early but Universal bought NBC and will probably try to revamp MSNBC and CNBC until they don't live up to expense calls.

Disney lost it's major radio news outlet so ultra conservative Clear Channel can broadcast ultra conservative Faux news and sports.

The network TV stations are and have been for 20+ years cutting their network news staffs because they make "no profit, and in fact lose money"

CBS besides paying the bitch Katie Couric too much money and having a bad contract that they lost their asses on because her ratings sucked sewer water, is struggling and Viacom will probably eventually pull the plug altogether.

Newspaper giant the Chicago Tribune got greedy and stupid and bought more than they could handle (The Cubs were a huge loss for them) and newspapers in general locally just aren't doing well. The AP depends heavily on the internet exposure, UPI is pretty much if not totally defunct and has been for years.

Gannett is weighed down by a bunch of local newspapers they bought from Thomson and they appear to be struggling.

Scripps-Howard is hurting again they have local newspapers under performing

That leaves Thomson/ Reuters, who has the internet stronghold and News Corp as the only 2 news sources in the USA really showing any profit or getting audiences.

 

Corporations arent bad.

Corporations owning Washington is bad, made even worse since the Citizens United decision.

And banking/financial services unregulated since the virtual repeal of Glass-Steagall is bad.