Far worse than Watergate. Why doesn't anyone know?

[jmervyn]

Anyway, the LIBOR story is leading the front pages of most of Britain’s dailies, it’s on TV, and it’s producing blistering editorials and howls of outrage amongst politicians and activists. But as compadre Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism put it, where’s the outrage here in America?

Well, for the first part, I think I'm stating the obvious - Labor isn't in power, so the gov't is to be treated as poorly as possible in the media.

Second, Barclays is viewed, correctly or not, as an English issue, so there's little attention from the U.S. media.

Third, the "short-attention-span theatre" of American media doesn't do well with financial issues. We didn't even get the housing crisis right (and certainly would never place the blame where it belongs)

[krischan]

It seems you think that the press is a kind of conspiracy which is plotting to manipulate people into believing certain things, to make them elect the socialists? Why aren't the rich buying the media and journalists, so they write what is to their liking?

It's more like tha press being an institution which wants to make money. That's achieved by selling newspapers, so they write what people want to read. That's usually gossip, scandals, sports and (not in the US, I guess) a nude woman with nice boobs on page 1. Regarding politics, the yellow press will write what their customers (usually less mentally gifted ones) would agree to after five beers in a pub.

BTW, German yellow press generally isn't left wing, but right wing. Not all of it, of course

[stillman]

It seems you think that the press is a kind of conspiracy which is plotting to manipulate people into believing certain things, to make them elect the socialists? Why aren't the rich buying the media and journalists, so they write what is to their liking?

Because they already have. However, it doesn't matter if it's socialists or a polar opposite group. Any masters will do, as long as they maintain some system of masters. This is hardly in the realm of tinfoil any more.

[jmervyn]

It seems you think that the press is a kind of conspiracy which is plotting to manipulate people into believing certain things, to make them elect the socialists?

It only qualifies as a conspiracy insofar as some of said cretins claim there's no such thing. By cretins I don't mean ZappaFan; he's just ignorant enough to believe them when they say it. Consider this - would you have a main German network, on the most patriotic holiday you have, run an opinion piece trashing Germany and the history? Because that's common enough for America.

Why aren't the rich buying the media and journalists, so they write what is to their liking?

Because they already have. However, it doesn't matter if it's socialists or a polar opposite group. Any masters will do, as long as they maintain some system of masters. This is hardly in the realm of tinfoil any more.

Stillman identified the core issue, though he isn't as anti-commie as I. The U.S. media <used> to be middle-right, reflecting the national pro-capitalism bias, but the New Left and their masters in the COMINTERN recognized that there were a few sectors they <must> seize control over to advance World Socialism - the bureaucracy, the courts, the unions (which were already allies), the educators, and the media. As Stillman also said, this is hardly the realm of tinfoil; it's simply ignored because it's unpleasant for them to be reminded of. I actually discussed the ACLU's roots as a COMINTERN-sponsored entity with one aspiring ambulance-chaser on the GW OTF, and he defended it - claimed it didn't matter.

It's more like tha press being an institution which wants to make money. That's achieved by selling newspapers, so they write what people want to read. That's usually gossip, scandals, sports and (not in the US, I guess) a nude woman with nice boobs on page 1. Regarding politics, the yellow press will write what their customers (usually less mentally gifted ones) would agree to after five beers in a pub.

You're confused. The "yellow press", which for the U.S. you would consider WorldNetDaily, the New York Post, and Fox News, are definitely of that capitalist model. They run cat-in-tree stories, are responsible for the glut of sex-captive-kidnap coverage, and spend obscene amounts of time on Hollywood. The badly-labelled <mainstream> media, OTOH, is FAILING because they refuse to do what you're talking about, and they're so insolvent that the only way they're staying afloat is cash infusions from George Soros and similar bureaucratic structures. They even pushed for a media-specific public bailout - like I want my tax dollars going to those Marxist arse-clowns? They bemoan and wail over the supposed "death" of traditional media, but what they're really pissed off over is the loss of their monopolistic media coverage. There's now other options to their force-feeding of left-leaning agitprop, and people are using them. Look at it this way - Newsweek used to be considered one of the pillars of mainstream media journalism; they were sold for $1 because nobody wants to read a worthless, boring, Socialist rag.

BTW, German yellow press generally isn't left wing, but right wing. Not all of it, of course

As is the New York Post and other "disreputable" papers. So from your point of view, Stern is right-ist, correct? So what about Der Spiegel?

[Stevinator]

I'm not sure why you think no one knows. when i google fast and furious in the news section of google, I get 62,500 hits. So if people haven't heard about it, it's because they're not paying attention. Anyone who reads the top stories section, or the politics section of their favorite news outlet I'm sure has heard about it (in the US anyway).

[krischan]

There's press and yellow press. While Stern might be the Bild Zeitung among the serious magazines, it isn't yellow press and Spiegel isn't at all. You just don't like their contents.

[jmervyn]

I'm not sure why you think no one knows. when i google fast and furious in the news section of google, I get 62,500 hits. So if people haven't heard about it, it's because they're not paying attention. Anyone who reads the top stories section, or the politics section of their favorite news outlet I'm sure has heard about it (in the US anyway).

Just because there are Google hits doesn't mean the information is widely disseminated. Compare that number against "Kardashian", for starters... what I'm stating is that the self-imposed gag on the Leftist media continues to be extremely effective; even the most minor of the Bush "scandals" got more continuous, prolonged airtime. If we continue to use the invalid Google-hit metric, "Plame" generated 1360 hits, and that's a stupid, decade-old faux scandal story now.

There's press and yellow press. While Stern might be the Bild Zeitung among the serious magazines, it isn't yellow press and Spiegel isn't at all. You just don't like their contents.

I actually don't give a rat's patootie about their content; Spiegel is the only one I've ever really bothered reading while I recall Stern having some kind of fetish over buttocks. I'm simply pointing out that what you regard as "yellow" AKA gutter press is what often is actually catering to the demand of the consumer. You have this view because YOU don't like their content, in turn.

[krischan]

I don't care as much about the demands of the consumer as I care about mine. It pleases my ego if I can appear as well-informed and wise person who knows things better than the dumb masses . Of course, the vote of a dumbass counts as much as mine, so spmebody has to take care that they know better what's good for them

Regarding the topic and as we are already about der Spiegel: Their web site didn't mention the weapon scandal, at least not with an article which I took note of. I read it in a small, local newspaper, by incident. So I'm on your side with respect to asking why nobody has noticed. Der Spiegel has a certain political bias and their own media filter, so maybe they decided not to mention it too loudly because they didn't want to bring Obama into trouble. Maybe it isn't that much important over here, however.

[jmervyn]

I don't care as much about the demands of the consumer as I care about mine. It pleases my ego if I can appear as well-informed and wise person who knows things better than the dumb masses .

What other purpose is there in being informed?

Of course, the vote of a dumbass counts as much as mine, so spmebody has to take care that they know better what's good for them

Spoken like a true... well, you know the rest.

Regarding the topic and as we are already about der Spiegel: Their web site didn't mention the weapon scandal, at least not with an article which I took note of. I read it in a small, local newspaper, by incident. So I'm on your side with respect to asking why nobody has noticed.

Thank you. I'd agree that Der Spiegel is following their agenda, and I'd further suggest that they are putting their status as part of the "mainstream" over that of sensible economic media coverage. Seriously, a scandal where American Gov't agents run guns to Mexican narco-terrorists, who proceed to kill hundreds including American Gov't agents? The German media isn't lapping that one up, if for no other reason than good ole' anti-American sentiment?

Der Spiegel has a certain political bias and their own media filter, so maybe they decided not to mention it too loudly because they didn't want to bring Obama into trouble. Maybe it isn't that much important over here, however.

I think I already answered this in the response above. I would counter that Der Spiegel is probably one of the media outlets most responsible for German Obama-hype, including his version of the Jelly Doughnut speech. Of course, since I no longer live over there I don't know which other agencies are of like mind.

[krischan]

Der Spiegel certainly liked Obama more than Bush, but they didn't promote a hype. There wasn't a hype here, you overestimate it. Besides, why do you care at all what people over here think about your presidential candidates? Ignore than, just as we ignore the opinion of people from the US regarding German elections.

I'm not sure what Der Spiegel wrote when Obama wanted to make a Berlin speech here during his election campaign. I just remember that Merkel refused to support him at that point, although he was free to make a visit and rent a hall to hold a speech, of course.

Please somebody tell Mitt Romney that he better doesn't ask as well, we aren't the election campaign helpers of presidential candidates. If he doesn't ask, nobody will feel offended, unlike in 2008. Not the Germans because they found it embarassing. Not the French because they probaby wanted an opportunity of their own to say no. I'm not sure what England said back then, however.