[Rhodes22-list] Political- media bias in reporting exposed... a failure to think things thru

[Tootle]

The author of Brad's Power Line Blog said, "I think it's fair to say that the
mainstream media's interest in Iraq has always been driven largely by the
opportunity to spin events there in a way that advances a political agenda.

It is important to understand what that unstated political agenda is.  In my
own words I summarize it as the destruction of America.  And those on still
on this forum say I am overstating or exaggerating the truth.  

Let us understand what Obama has said about oil companies.  He has said
several times that an obscene or windfall profits tax is in order.  So what
is the result of such a tax?  

Before you begin to assert that there are a real obscene profits made by oil
companies, that is for example Exxon Mobile, compare their profits with
other businesses.  Let us compare their profits with say, Microsoft.  As I
read the numbers, Exxon Mobil is about one third ( 1/3rd ) as much.  

Now understand what those obscene profits are used for.  Yes, they pay the
head fellow an obscene salary.  But then they pay all employees wages.  And
they pay something called dividends.  What are those dividends?  They are
payments to the shareholders of Exxon Mobile. 

What are shareholders?  Those are holders of pieces of paper who say that
they are owners, stakeholders in that obscene company.  And who are those
noxious owners of shares of Exxon Mobile?
Well, some are people, individuals, and members of this forum.  Others are
mutual funds, retirement funds and other companies.

And who are these salubrious mutual funds and retirement funds?  Well both
are groups of individuals, people like on this forum who have gotten
together and put their earnings from working into a collective fund that
purchases equities (aka stocks) for building a supply of money that can be
used later to pay for retirement.

Simply put the obscene earnings that Obama wants nationalized are savings by
working people like most on this list.

And what will be the result of such action by Obama and his cohorts?  It
will be the weakening of companies so penalized.  It could even destroy
those companies.  What would destruction of those companies mean?  

It would wipe out parts of mutual funds and retirement accounts.  All that
those people (you people) have worked for and saved for wiped out!

And are there others who own stock in these companies?  Yes, foreign
investors own stock in American companies.  And they do so because those
companies have been shown to be stable and secure investments of capital.

If you harm American companies or as Maxine Waters wants to do, nationalize
them, what effect will that have on foreign investments?  The value of “ALL”
American companies will become suspect and foreign investors will go
elsewhere.  This would result in the value destruction of “ALL” mutual funds
and failure of retirement accounts to pay retirees.

And why do socialist want to do this?  The failure of the American economic
system would make you all  wards of the state.  This result would give the
state power over all.  This religion would make them Gods on earth.

My analylsis shows that Obama and his socialist friends and fellow travelers
are despots, false gods or simply agents of Satan trying to enslave you all.

Ed K
Greenville, SC, USA



Brad Haslett-2 wrote:
> 
> Say it ain't so!  Brad
> 
> ---------------
> 
> (from PowerLine)
> 
> 
> War Coverage Fades Away
> 
> The New York
> Times<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/business/media/23logan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin>confirms
> what we've all observed: as violence in Iraq recedes, our news
> outlets take less interest in events there:
> 
> According to data compiled by Andrew Tyndall, a television consultant who
> monitors the three network evening newscasts, coverage of Iraq has been
> "massively scaled back this year." Almost halfway into 2008, the three
> newscasts have shown 181 weekday minutes of Iraq coverage, compared with
> 1,157 minutes for all of 2007. The "CBS Evening News" has devoted the
> fewest
> minutes to Iraq, 51, versus 55 minutes on ABC's "World News" and 74
> minutes
> on "NBC Nightly News." (The average evening newscast is 22 minutes long.)
> 
> CBS News no longer stations a single full-time correspondent in Iraq,
> where
> some 150,000 United States troops are deployed.
> 
> I suppose it's understandable, in a way, that coverage would be "massively
> scaled back" when there is less violence to report on. One wonders,
> though,
> whether the change may be due in part to the fact that network executives
> are more excited about publicizing apparent failure in Iraq than success
> there.
> 
> The journalists who complained to the Times about their employers' lack of
> interest in Iraq and Afghanistan also noted that interest has flagged
> among
> the American public:
> 
> On "The Daily Show," Ms. Logan echoed the comments of other journalists
> when
> she said that many Americans seem uninterested in the wars now. Mr.
> McCarthy
> said that when he is in the United States, bringing up Baghdad at a dinner
> party "is like a conversation killer."
> 
> I'm afraid that's also true. The conclusion of the Times piece is
> revealing,
> too:
> 
> Journalists at all three American television networks with evening
> newscasts
> expressed worries that their news organizations would withdraw from the
> Iraqi capital after the November presidential election. They spoke only on
> the condition of anonymity in order to avoid offending their employers.
> 
> It's interesting that the journalists themselves link their employers'
> interest in Iraq to the election. I think it's fair to say that the
> mainstream media's interest in Iraq has always been driven largely by the
> opportunity to spin events there in a way that advances a political
> agenda.
> Remember al Qaqaa
> <http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2004/10/008280.php>?
> That story dominated the news for a week before the 2004 Presidential
> election. It was a story of great importance, however, only as long as it
> could be used to help John Kerry's Presidential campaign. Once the
> election
> was over, al Qaqaa was never heard of again. With hindsight, that episode
> might be taken as a paradigm of far too much of the mainstream media's
> coverage of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Wasn't there talk on here along the lines of most of the troops are
>> supporting Obama? I know, I know, check the archives. I would, but it's
>> just not important to me...
>>
>> Tootle wrote:
>> > Recently I received an email about media bias.  I tried to check it out
>> with
>> > snopes.  They have finally replied:
>> >
>> > http://www.snopes.com:80/politics/war/raddatz.asp
>> >
>> > And when these things are done without any way to check things out,
>> well
>> > that is usually the way it is done by the Liberal Northeast Media
>> types...
>> >
>> > Ed K
>> > Greenville, SC, USA
>> >
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>> __________________________________________________
>>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Political---media-bias-in-reporting-exposed...-tp18071979p18089396.html
Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.