dagblog - Comments for "Who Can Spend?"

Rare blatant admission of

artappraiser — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 02:26:18 +0000

Rare blatant admission of ratings-driven news coverage decisions:

"Barack Obama got a question about legalizing pot near the beginning of his campaign and he was very dismissive about it. But it's a big issue for people under 40," Uygur said. "When we do stories about legalizing pot, our ratings spike, because we listen to our audience."

He was on a blatant crass commercialism roll:

Uygur touted the potential of web video to create a marketplace where individual creator brands superseded network brands, observing that internationally available websites like YouTube create content that everyone in the world can see, whereas many networks restrict both carriage and web access to their content to individual cable providers within a limited selection of countries.

from

Young Turks chief mulls MSNBC moves/
Uygur see opportunity in Olbermann exit, web video
By Sam Thielman, Variety, Jan. 25, 2011

Truth is on the side of the

Resistance — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:45:05 +0000

In reply to I think this is a variation

Truth is on the side of the oppressed.
Malcolm X

Good post, Donal. Here's a

Oxy Mora — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 19:33:21 +0000

In reply to Who Can Spend?

Good post, Donal. Here's a statistic to add to the stack, this one from Peter Tufano, a Harvard Business School professor who is soon to take over as Dean of the business school of Oxford.
Tufano's specialty is consumer finance and he has done some good work.

One of Tufano's surveys asked U.S. adults if in a period of 30 days they could, from all sources including family--could the respondents come up with $2000 cash.

25% said definitely not and another 25% said probably not. This paints as good a picture as anything I've seen about how close people are to the disaster of a medical bill, loss of a job, or even a transmission going out on the car.

For those (such as me, prior

Atheist — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:08:59 +0000

In reply to Another interesting chart on

For those (such as me, prior to a bit of Googling) unclear on the definition, "prime age" is evidently between the age of 25 and 54. Either that, or its ages that are only divisible by one and themselves.

Another interesting chart on

Obey — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:00:54 +0000

In reply to Who Can Spend?

Another interesting chart on employment levels - US versus Europe.

I think this is a variation

Donal — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:04:41 +0000

In reply to Re: Following his links,

I think this is a variation of the If The King Only Knew type of complaint - subjects wishing that their rulers knew what was really happening away from court, certain that they would step in and set things right. Instead we have writers and bloggers with a viewpoint, certain that the people would set things right if only the government or the media would allow the truth to be told. The ugly alternative is that many people are content to keep running and let someone else save the slower members of society from the wolves.

Re: Following his links,

artappraiser — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:57:35 +0000

In reply to Who Can Spend?

Re: Following his links, according to Decline of the Empire, results of the Pew poll are being ignored in the MSM,,,,,Why isn't this information Front Page News? Can you see the headline? I can see it, splashed across the top of the front page of the New York Times.

I distinctly remember this headline on the front page of the dead tree version of the New York Times already way back on November 28, 2009:

Food Stamp Use Soars, and Stigma Fades

I remember it precisely because they had this big map to go with it:

Food Stamp Usage Across the Country

and I studied it extensively.

The Times covers issues of U.S. poverty and the struggling classes very often and give those stories strong play in the dead tree version which I subscribe to. (While this is a whole 'nother issue, I should also mention that the dead tree Times even has a tradition of branching out into activism on this front--for many years they have their "Neediest Cases" campaign in the last two months of the year--no matter what the economy is doing-- where they give daily space and much reporters' time to specific heartrending stories on the suffering and needy and the difference that a little bit of help had made in their lives in order to encourage donations.)

Virtually every time I see someone say "the MSM isn't covering this," I can show examples that the New York Times has been. That's not just blather, I've done that many times. Here's an example from less than a month ago here on Dag Blog, where I point out that the New York Times does cover the prisons topic extensively.

It's impossible to know what every blogger or writer who uses this argument means by "the MSM," but it seems to me a facile way of avoiding confronting the real problem: that most prefer to avoid reading or listening or watching on a lot of topics, and with the internet now, they can chose what news they get. And if you watch "most popular lists" on newspaper websites, as I do, those things are very different from what editors of dead tree versions stress as important. There is a noted difference with newspaper website editing vs. dead tree versions; the former pander much more to "most popular."

Last week, the Times had this lead editorial: Poverty and Recovery, where the editors argue against all the slash the budget talk in Congress by pointing out that What analysts have found is that the antipoverty effect of government intervention in 2009 was profound. Need I point out that that article is not on the any of the "most blogged," "most emailed" or "most popular" lists? But it was on the top of the editorial page in the dead tree edition, and that's why I recall reading it.

I am not going into all of this because I want to promote the Times or defend whatever people mean by "the MSM." It's because really do believe the whole "it's because the MSM is shirking it's duty" argument, whatever the topic, is quite delusional and is hurting actual progress because people use it as an excuse. It's a way to escape thinking about what the real problem is.

The stories are almost always being covered, and quite well, and with search engines, you can find them. that's not the problem.That when it's being said "the MSM isn't covering it," it should instead be said "the majority is choosing not to read and hear or watch about this or think about this." We aren't going to solve any problems by blaming "the MSM," because the MSM is really us, and that includes blogs. Everyone is their own editor now--and as Donal reminds me with his mention of it, it seems to be getting worse: many are choosing to get their news of the day via Smartphone and Facebook recommends, and every media outlet and blog , it seems, is begging for Facebook recommends.

But the delusionary nature of the "it's the MSM's fault" argument goes further in this particular case . Here's a Times piece from this last October that really says it all on that:

Running Against Food Stamps
October 17, 2010, New York Times
By FRANCIS X. CLINES

Ignoring Republicans’ role in unleashing the recession, Newt Gingrich is advising his party’s candidates to make a campaign issue of the fact that food stamp distribution has hit a historic high.

If you google "Gingrich food stamps," you get 83,000+ results, with Newsweek, CBS and Fox News among the first page results. It's delusional and absurd to imply the problem is simply that everyone in "the MSM" is ignoring this problem when Newt Gingrich is advising Republicans to run on it, and that story itslef was covered by "the MSM." And when shortly thereafter, Republicans win the House from the Democrats. See where the blame the MSM argument gets you? Deluded about realities, because you have this mysterious monster "the MSM" to blame.

Actually, I think the

Atheist — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 13:28:55 +0000

In reply to 29% say it is difficult to

Actually, I think the headline in the New York Times would go something like, "Jesus was right when he said the poor would always be with us" - with a lede of "Despite paying no income taxes, 29% say it is difficult to afford food." You can be sure there'd be a reference to the Douthat essay that WKW just mentioned.

29% say it is difficult to

David Seaton — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:33:03 +0000

In reply to Who Can Spend?

29% say it is difficult to afford food.

Yessiree Bob, that would sure make a nifty headline in the New York Times. Especially if put along side some scandal about war profiteering... oh sorry, the "military industrial complex". 14% of the nation on food stamps... and we go around the world smugly telling other people how to run their affairs? Very nice post Donal!

I am torn between what to

Resistance — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 06:25:17 +0000

In reply to Who Can Spend?

I am torn between what to support?

I own real estate, and the only way for me to recover form the purposed destruction of housing values, is that a shortage should occur.

Why didn’t we tear down the homes after the insurance companies paid off?

The Obama administration purposely allowed the housing market to devalue; it is the biggest transfer of wealth since the days of the RTC.

While Obama spouts off, about how we need to sell our products overseas, we the people have it already figured it out; we'll compete when our wages have averaged out with the rest of the world.

GE hiring a few thousand workers to make generators sounds good, till you realize how many millions of jobs were lost. China won’t copy the design and eventually, building their own?

The race to the bottom became a reality, and Obama and his team presided over it.

Housing values will never come back. because they don’t want them to.

Once the supply of foreclosed homes is gone, builders will offer cheaper homes, continuing to undercut homeowners who still own existing homes.

As I wrote, I am torn because the Obama administration, pitted another American worker against me, so that the fat cats could extract more profits for themselves.

It was all about screwing over the existing homeowners PURPOSELY.