You see a lot of these guys delivering stock tips and financial advise in news.

It is not a long time ago when I saw an American columnist giving a 'sell' recommendation to an uninteresting small company which a Finnish company was buying. The columnist probably would never have heard about the company without insider information.

It is the freedom of lying, I mean, freedom of expression.

He who wins the war writes the news!

and the state of its media conglomeration? (And the reduction in the number of different print sources and outlets.?

The press has become a slave to the big corporations that employ them, such as G.E. and Time Warner.  It's not like the days in the past when the media was independent and called it like they saw it.  To avoid confronting Bush on major issues that are undermining our country, the media would rather become apologists, or in the worst case scenario, turn to news as entertainment.

The current boycott of Chris Matthews is a very helpful challenge to the pathetic turn of events with the media.  While Mathews at one time used to be somewhat liberal, he saw where his bread was buttered and decided to prostitute himself to pander after the conservatives.  

The boycott may even be working.  I've been watching Hardball, even though I know I shouldn't.  It's like watching a train wreck, it's hard not to look.  Friday was hilarious.  Mathews introduced Ron Reagan, President Reagan's son who is unabashadly liberal, as "a guest panelist sitting in for Rita Crosby."  Reagan rolled his eyes--it was hilarious!  

But Matthews is shameless.  He went on and on about what a good job Bush's press secretary did under the pressure.  I will have to say this, however, Matthews saw the Dead Eye Dick story for what it was--a story that he could cover wall to wall.  He seemed to have a sense that we are addicted to stories like this.  He's right about that.

It is truly amazing to watch this all unfold before our eyes.  I see true believers still posting that the WMD were transported to Syria (in large yellow barrels with skull and crossbones on them, LOL).

Equally troubling to me is the inability of the Dems to make a dent in any of this.  They cannot be that incompetent.  I believe that they have also been co-opted and it is now a "don't rock the boat too much, go along to get along system".  

Most of them will not stand up and take a strong position or they will lost sponsors and maybe an election.  So they go along: Bush may be breaking the law but the heck if we are gonna do anything about it.

It is psychological abuse, domination and manipulation, planned and willingly committed.  

It's sociopathic behavior that is normally associated with child abusers, serial killers, some murderers, scam artists and spouse beaters.  

The fact that these sociopathic behaviors are now widely used, even found acceptable, in the media, business, marketing and politics is heinous and depraved.

Breaking up the media is a partial solution in my opinion.   The problem of the acceptable sociopaths behind it also need to be dealt with.  

Teaching people how to identify and combat psychological abuse, domination and manipulation is a long term solution.  

February 14, 2006

DALLAS -- The Bush administration spent $1.4 billion in taxpayer dollars on 137 contracts with advertising agencies over the past two-and-a-half years, according to a Government Accountability Office report released by House Democrats Monday.

With spending on public relations and other media included, federal agencies spent $1.6 billion on what some Democrats called "spin."

...

The Department of Defense spent the most on media contracts, with pacts worth $1.1 billion, according to the study.

Etc. from:

http://www.brandweek.com/bw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001996448

are at work, but not as egregiously.  However the concentation of media is in some respects worse than in the US.  There seems to be less collusion, but I'm uncertain.  Media presentation in the last election, for example was heavily biased against the Liberals and the only party to receive net positive coverage was the Conservative party.  But one data point doesn't a trend make.

Fundamentally though, the key thing is money.  There's a lot less money available to buy corruption in Canada, so there's a lot less corruption.  Remember, it's not just ownership, it's that many individuals within the system are effectively bought.  Both have an effect, together they multiply.  

as a matter of discussion.  Andrea Mitchell can't even give an interview without sounding like she breathlessly needs to leave so that she can give Cheney a neck rub.

What makes it even worse is how Alan Greenspan, her husband, kept raising interest rates before the 2000 election, even though all of the indications were that the U.S. was going into a recession.  Supposedly, Greenspan did so because he didn't want to be seen as interfering with the election cycle.  Oh, he interfered, alright, to the detriment of the U.S. economy.  Hopefully, Bernanke won't be the political swine the Greenspans are.

the media in Canada is dominated by very few owners.  But there is only one that I can think of, CanWest, that has great influence on their editors.  

The reason I believe there is less collusion is because our elections for the most part are publically funded at $1.75 per vote per party.  There undoubtedly was 'some' corruption and 'some' members did receive contributions that were above the $1,000 limit that is imposed by Elections Canada.  

Take the money away from politicians and there is much less graft and corruption.  Fortunately because our Senate is appointed for life, there is no possibility of them being corrupted by lobbyists.  The hole that needs to be closed concerning lobbyists is the Members of Parliament.  But even with present legislation if it is ever found out they receive funds from lobbyists, they would be censured by Ethics Commissions.  

The Canadian Radio and Televion Commission (CRTC) with its rules do effectively block transmission of punditry.  

I'm hoping because the population of Canada is spread wide and far that influence peddling is less able to be felt.  

Also, I don't believe Canadians are as subject to propaganda, because multiculturalism tends to be the rule rather than one central nationalism that is subject to being manipulated.    

             

Fortunately because our Senate is appointed for life, there is no possibility of them being corrupted by lobbyists.

strikes me as the biggest question mark about why Harper wants to make the Senate electable.

He knows he's messing with the balance of power in Canada. Why is he so absolutely certain it's in favor of his agenda?

America will have to do more than just reigning in their media.  They just have to restrict funds for their elections.  The best way to do that, as Canada has found, is to publically fund it.  So much for each vote.  

That will take a LOT of convicing for America to change it's way of electing people.  The amount that is spent just on advertising is a phenomenal amount.  Each campaign receives ridiculous amounts of monies for every election albeit mayors, congressmen, senators or presidential candidates.  

I'm just not sure how you would ever convince Americans to restrict the amount that goes into campaign financing given they are set on freedom for anyone to spend as much as they like as long as they can afford it.  Levelling the field isn't part of the American psyche.      

No western country in the world (except Britain) would have bought George E. Bush's bullshit about Iraq being a threat prior to his assault in 2003. The fact that black Americans were heavily against the war, while whites were not, denotes a level of racism in the support of war.

Americans have some serious issues with ignorance, greed, racism, materialism and lack of respect or even knowledge of other people,cultures, history, geography etc.

One wonders what will happen here with if the upcoming (?) attack  on Iran leads to $5 a gallon gas, 15% unemployment, interest rates rising, a draft, and the housing market collapse. Demagogues like Bush historically have prospered particularly well in times of economic collapse.

To restrict the amount of money required in an election campaign means you have to forbid television commercials.  Since the Supreme Court has ruled that such a restriction would compromise free speech, this reform isn't likely anytime soon.  

The curious thing about use of propaganda and outright lies to govern is that the government at some point loses all credibility.  This has already happened to Bush.  The Bush administration can no longer govern, even though Republicans control every lever of power and Democrats have few tools to block them.  

Since nothing Bush says is really believable anymore, he is forced to up the ante by telling even more outrageous lies.  Example: he was fully authorized by Congress to go around FISA and no law was broken in so doing.  He may well win this one and avoid impeachment/conviction for deliberately violating the law - the Republicans in Congress are too supine to stand up to the administration.

That may be because the big lie has been at the heart of Republican electoral victories for decades.  Lee Atwater perfected the technique and Karl Rove is now the reigning master of trashing your opponent's strengths by telling outright lies through proxy groups like the Swift Boat Veterans.  

It is also why Republicans can win elections but not effectively govern.  They've already sold their souls by abandoning the truth when they do things like branding actual war heroes like Max Cleland and John Kerry as cowards.  

The fact that black Americans were heavily against the war, while whites were not, denotes a level of racism in the support of war.

Are you trolling ?

Mad Dog

the populace of Britain overwhelmingly didn't buy it either. Whilst there was a rally of support for their troops around the time of the invasion the polls consistently showed the British people did not see Saddam as a threat, as of course he wasn't.

Sure do like your hockey playing, irrespective of the horse hockey our press puts out.

On topic: even if everything the Bush administration said was true, the sound bite treatment of the press, one way or the other, trivializes the consequences and allows a very narrow focus to prevail.

We're seeing it in the coverage of the markets, where only a few numbers set in a very narrow interpretation, cast a current judgment of affairs.

The press creates a bottom line. Call it propaganda or something else, the medium is failing in critical ways.

To restrict the amount of money required in an election campaign means you have to forbid television commercials.  Since the Supreme Court has ruled that such a restriction would compromise free speech, this reform isn't likely anytime soon.

Television ads can and do appear even when the source of the funds is public.  The way it's done here is that each vote for a given party is funded with $1.83 for the next campaign--that's been raised from $1.75.  Given there are many more millions of people in the States, there would be no lack of funding for a perhaps more modest campaign by all the parties.  With such a large population, you may even be able to lower the amount?

Elections Canada does restrict the amount of money that can be contributed by individuals.  See Contributions of Individuals, effective January 1, 2004  Where there are loopholes, they are being closed.

It seems to work very well, with no one candidate getting too much or too little.  I assume the funds once distributed are handled by Finance Chairmen within a riding?  That part I'm not conversant about.  Very similiar rules and laws and in place for leadership campaigns.      

Through tax returns, citizens can select a contribution to the presidential campaign fund distributed to both parties and to be used for television.  The first problem is that the major parties are now electing to refuse this money because it ties their hands and they can raise more money outside the system.

The second problem is with the advocacy ads from outside groups not part of the campaign.  They dominate the airwaves, the source of the money is hidden, and they are viewed as free speech.  The parties wink at this stuff because they benefit from these third party ads, almost all of which are negative about the other candidate.

discusses the roll of the First Amendment and political expenditures:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=424&invol=1

and changed. Or a constitutional amendment will have to be put in to override it. That and the corporate personage ruling are two of the worst rulings ever.

First  Amendment.org

As noted in the link, the new laws could be challenged.  When is common sense going to prevail regarding electoral reform?