See? What Did They Tell You?

"Thank you, Burt. Thank you, Christine. And a warm welcome to all of you -- our shareholders and advertisers, without whom we wouldn't be gathered here this morning, our reporters and editors, and, of course, all you valued readers. It's a great crowd, and we're so glad you're here!

"These little get-togethers of ours grow more elaborate every year, don't they? But we understand, when you come right down to it, that it's about lots more than fruit cups and cinnamon rolls. Here at the Daily Treasoner, we take our responsibilities very seriously.

"And what are those responsibilities? In a phrase, to do everything we can to make our country weaker.

"Now, I know some of you are surprised to hear me say it as plainly as that. You've had your suspicions all along, some of you. And others? Well, it's been more than simply suspicions. I can tell from your letters and your phone calls -- you've been pretty much convinced from the get-go that weakening our country is what this newspaper is all about.

"Well, I'm here to tell you that you're right, so why beat around the bush any longer? We might as well come right out and say it. Our primary goal -- the thing that motivates us 24/7 here at the Daily Treasoner -- is to tear this country down.

"That's been our dream -- and I'm sure I speak for every member of our staff -- from the moment we first went into this profession: to do everything in our power to undermine our nation, undercut our leaders, and make us ripe for the picking by any enemy or evil madman, anywhere in the world, who's looking to do us harm.

"I'm sure some of you, when you chose careers, you went into the family business, whatever it happened to be, because you decided that family loyalty and tradition were the most important things to you. That's fine. And some of the rest of you? Well, maybe you picked careers you knew would make you the big bucks -- doctors, lawyers, whatever.

"Not us, though. We chose journalism, and we chose it precisely for the opportunity it gave us to ruin the country we all grew up in.

"That's why we got into the business, and that's why we've stayed at it year after year. It's why we cover the stories we cover, and it's why we write and edit our stories the way we write and edit them -- to only show the negative. And that's true whether it's the war in Iraq, or something the president says, or something right here at the city council -- we want to get people upset for no good reason, so they can keep our elected officials from doing their jobs.

"So anyway, right about now, you're probably wondering: Does the Daily Treasoner come up with all these terrible stories, not to mention all these totally unpatriotic opinion columns, all by itself? I wish we could say that we do, but tearing down America is too big a job for any one newspaper. That's why we have a conference call every morning -- all the editors of all the newspapers coast to coast -- so we can decide the best way to hurt the country that day.

"And, of course, when it's something really special, we also get secret instructions from our controllers overseas: Bashir, Ahmad, Vladimir, Tsing-Lo. These are people -- and I've named just a few of them -- who are every bit as dedicated to America's downfall as we are, and they tell us step by step exactly what we're supposed to do to make it happen. That's a real time-saver!

"And speaking of time, I see mine is almost up. I know I've just touched on a few of the highlights here, but I hope I've given you at least a flavor of what we do and, even more important, why we do it. Destroying this country is what gets journalists up every morning, and what puts us to bed every night with smiles on our faces.

"Let's take a short break, and when we come back, we'll show you how we burn the flag."

Posted 10/22/06. Get the lowdown right here at "Rick's" -- and spread the word while there's still time!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rick Horowitz is a syndicated columnist, TV commentator, writing coach and public speaker.

While thanks their other income streams -- Internet, television etc -- AQ as a whole is probably doing "OK".

You may in fact be right about that; I also noticed while looking around that Google will soon be purchasing content from the crAPweasels. I suppose the bottom line is, getting information re revenues/expenses may be next to impossible. As a "cooperative", owned by ~1500 members(newspapers, broadcasters, etc), and as such a not-for-profit entity I gather doesn't file standard financials like a public company.

In any case, I tried to compare the arrangement to my local phone company which is also a "cooperative". What would happen to them if their customer/owner base were to fall on hard times? For example, one of the largest plywood mills in the country is within ten miles of here and obviously employs the bulk of the local labor market. There has been talk for years of shutting down the plant. It has happened with other plants in the same general area. Buyouts, timber trades and various other tools have been used in the past to "keep the doors open" but I don't think that can go on forever.

So I asked myself, what would the local phone cooperative do in a situation where say, 10% or more of their customer base were suddenly unable to pay for phone service? Considering the ripple effect, 10% may be an optimistic number. The upshot is some changes would likely have to be made at the phone company. What those changes might be is debatable, but something would have to give, eh?

>While thanks their other income streams -- Internet, television etc -- AQ as a whole is probably doing "OK".
"You may in fact be right about that..."

I know I'm correct, unfortunately.
We can terminate a newspaper, but, we usually don't terminate what we read as "news" on the Internet however it comes to us, huh.
The AQ is for all practical purpose an "OEM".

"I also noticed while looking around that Google will soon be purchasing content from the crAPweasels."

Uh-huh and we needn't review the ideology of the 3 pinheads behind Google, do we.
I use "MySpace.com" as my home page -- since terminating Sludge -- & they use all our favs...AQ, Reuters, Gannon etc.
There're no other sources so if ever there were a true "monopoly" by definition of the word the "news business" would be it, to a 'T'.
IF the Liberal-Socialist stranglehold on our information sources were to be broken, it'd have to be an antitrust angle to do it, otherwise they've the 1st Amendment and know well how to use it.

"I suppose the bottom line is, getting information re revenues/expenses may be next to impossible. As a "cooperative", owned by ~1500 members(newspapers, broadcasters, etc), and as such a not-for-profit entity I gather doesn't file standard financials like a public company."

Nope, they don't have to file and/or answer to anyone or thing.
At the risk of sounding a *bit* conspiratorial I'll say right here & now, given hindsight, the AQ's status isn't an accident.

"In any case, I tried to compare the arrangement to my local phone company which is also a "cooperative". What would happen to them if their customer/owner base were to fall on hard times?"

Nothing.
Those remaining would pickup the slack while the coop trimmed operating expenses.

"For example, one of the largest plywood mills in the country is within ten miles of here and obviously employs the bulk of the local labor market. There has been talk for years of shutting down the plant. It has happened with other plants in the same general area. Buyouts, timber trades and various other tools have been used in the past to "keep the doors open" but I don't think that can go on forever."

Barring unforeseen event(s), I don't suppose it can go on forever.
It's called, "progress", FGS; although, as hard as I try to view these things I cannot come to a conclusion it's progressive to anyone but a precious few.
Go figure.
Just more of that, "Doesn't make any sense, a'tall" thing we've witnessed happening -- in earnest -- for the past 20 years.

"So I asked myself, what would the local phone cooperative do in a situation where say, 10% or more of their customer base were suddenly unable to pay for phone service?"

The biggest threat a coop phone company faces isn't a closing plywood plant FGS, at least not taking a 10% hit in customer base.
Now *cellphones* are a very real threat to all land-line phone companies. ;^)

"Considering the ripple effect, 10% may be an optimistic number. The upshot is some changes would likely have to be made at the phone company. What those changes might be is debatable, but something would have to give, eh?"

Yea something would give but it'd continue on, nonetheless.

...just as the AQ et al, will. ;^)

Our faux press were socialist cheerleaders for most of the 20th century, becoming more emboldened during the second half once their "creds" were established. THAT has to be a story in and of itself -- how that happened. That is, how the liberal/leftist/socialist media came to dominance? Care to take a stab at it???

Sure, I'll stab at anything. :-)

Again, it's human nature. For most of us freedom is hard, socialism is easy. By that, I mean that the majority of people are not overly ambitious, not eager for hard work, toil and trouble, especially when they can , "Let Sam do it."

When hard work is a necessity, like it was for everyone in the early years of our county, and the options of not working were grim, like starvation, most gave it no thought, they just worked at whatever would insure survival. God and religion were mightily relied upon during those times.

Then in 1848 along come Marx and Engels with their siren's song of,

"Hey, let's just all get along, turn everything over to the strongest and the brightest to plan and take care of the big stuff, and the rest of us, the masses, will just do what we do best and put all the earnings in one big pot to be equally divided amongst us all.

"No need to struggle with that thorny freedom thing where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, we will all live in a workers' paradise.

"Also, no need to worry about a vengeful God, to the trash heap with that idea. The State, and more specifically the Party, will take care of us. We will worship the leaders of those. At least we can see them."

Pamphlets, and then newspapers, arose as a way to distribute news and ideas. Technology later brought us radio, the internet, and television but those are just means of distribution. News is a product the same as a car or washing machine is a product. There has to be a market for it. It has to fill a need.

When news organizations report the happenings of the day, and someone's opinion of it, they are generally supporting and commenting on the ideas and values of the day. Occasionally a crusader of some sort will come along and challenge an accepted value and that of itself makes news. Slavery was eliminated, prohibition was installed though later eliminated or modified, and a variety of other social mores and institutions were changed through those people and the wide distribution and influenced their ideas achieved through the media of the day.

Generally, though, the media exist through the market place of ideas and the largest market is that of the beliefs held by the majority. That is why talk radio is the best indicator of public opinion, far better than polls, because people freely choose to listen or turn it off. AM radio is thriving with conservative talk shows, the liberal ones are going in the toilet, while the network news and liberal cable tv news are drowning in red ink. Fox, less liberal than the rest, is killing the others.

What does that tell you about public opinion and the market place for ideas?

The rise in dominance of certain news organizations occurred over years based on the profit motive and serving the needs of the majority by reporting and commenting on the events and ideas of their time. Financial empires were built and passed on to heirs.

Many of us have pondered why rich people support government policies which mitigate against their wealth. Socialism and Communism are two political system that are either detrimental to the rich or are openly hostile to them, yet, there many of them go, singing merrily along on the march toward each.

As I said in the previous post, the tone of an organization comes from the top down. The idle rich, as most of the publishers and media moguls have become, sometimes seem more intent on social crusades that on profit. Some probably don't even understand the economics of the business, or economics in general for that matter. It is much easier, personally, for a liberal, rich or poor, to give support to a government program that proposes to "help some group of unfortunates" than it is to oppose such a proposal. Opponents are made to appear mean and heartless. (Can you say, "Republicans!")

The fact that government has proved to be a very inefficient means of distributing goods and services has been proved time and again. Think FEMA. Why, then, do these supposedly intelligent people support such a system? Because it is easy, it is certain, well sort of, and it is mandated so that you don't have to trust someone to do it on their own, like churches and philanthropic organizations who have done it for hundreds of years quite cheaply and successfully. So, the liberals get all the credit and have to do very little for it, like maybe pay some taxes, but that pain is spread among us all.

The tone is set from the top. The top are now the idle rich. The idle rich like do do good things by proxy. Supporting a government program is easy.

They also think they are the elite, the ones who ought to run things. As the government moves left, the foolishly think they won't be affected. They should remember what Hillary said in a moment of candor,

"I am going to take things away from you for the common good."

Our saviour, once again, will be human nature and the market place of ideas. Let us hope, and work hard to prevent, having to go through another Dark Ages before we get back.

Take a look - it's a thread I started shortly after 911, and have continued to update since then.

I read it when you first posted it and you have pinged me ever since. Although I think you make a valid point and that your analysis of the impact of the innerconnectedness of broadcast media and politics, I don't think it is the definitive statement of our times.

Regulating the airwaves is a legitimate function of the government to keep the big ones from eating the little ones. That government sometimes brings about the sins it attempts to prevent is regretful but common. That is a problem with government, any government, but much more common in other governments than our own.

broadcast journalism, .... does not have First Amendment protection because broadcasting in general exists only because of censorship of those who do not have FCC licenses.

Broadcast journalism does have 1st Amendment protection and it does not exist because of the censorship of non-licensees. It exist because of the technology to deliver it. Because present technology is limited to certain frequencies they must be allocated in some manner. That seems to be the crux of your position, the government control over the allocation.

The Clintons' heavy handed attempt to censure a TV program had nothing to do with 1st Amendment rights but with attempts at bullying. Had ABC gone to court I am certain that their rights to broadcast the program exactly as intended would have been upheld. That, of course would have destroyed the timing of the presentation but that is one of the reasons the Clintons acted as they did. I also agree with you that the synergism between politicians and deliverers of information in a format that can be very effective emotionally can be a problem. I don't agree that it is a problem by its very nature. The problem is with people, with human nature, not methodology and technology.

The media IS misusing its mandate, or license, for a cause that, if successful, will be their undoing, but that is true of all the rich people and businesses who support the left. However, absent a technological revolution, in both transmitters and receivers, that would allow unlimited users of the airwaves, I see no alternative to what we have, its misuse notwithstanding.

>At the risk of sounding a *bit* conspiratorial I'll say right here & now, given hindsight, the AQ's status isn't an accident.
"Hard call since the "arrangement" was established so long ago."

Not a difficult call a'tall, my friend.
The AQ -- whateverinthehell *it* "is" -- was "sold" right about the time Clintigula was elected for the first time, 1993 I believe.

If you think about the times carefully you'd recall it was all the "news services" dutifully reporting [the] corruption inside both Democratic controlled houses, eh?
Subsequently it resulted in the highly successful 1994 Republican revolution.

Shortly following the Republican takeover -- perhaps even before they'd been officially sworn-in -- Mr. Newt, acting as the new SotH began shooting off his mouth, almost boasting his congress would tackle all manner of third rail issues (like tort reform *and* he attacked the "Leftist media") promising to implement all manner of new rule(s) and/or law(s).
That was it, things took a dramatic turn-for-the-worse at that moment.

~snip~

Right around the same time I clearly recall all the Hollyweird big-shots *and* media moguls -- including AQ's new management -- being invited to the White House for a "summit" with The Bent One.
Remember that?
Curiously The detail(s) of that meeting were never revealed or reported to the public, what was released was pure bullshit & the mediots moved-on to more important matters to hammer on 24/7 such as Newt's X, the racist white males burning churches in Little Rock, Hillary in pink dresses & how "draconian" those *we* elected will set "progress" back.
Ahhhhh those were the days, huh.

The right-wing was doomed when it came to getting a "fair shake" from [that] point all the way up to today, and The Associated Quislings -- by far & away -- led the way.

After the "summit" Clintigula could rape, molest fat Jewish interns, keep his behavior(s) while in England at Cambridge {sp?} quiet, make various & assorted deals with Chicoms (involving matters of national security) for *campaign contributions* -- :o) -- rent out the Lincoln bedroom (for more $$), hang condoms on Xmas trees and on & on & on and did any of the MSM sources "report" any of it?
Nope.

While we read of that stuff at various Internet sites *like* World Net Daily etc, at the most appearing in The Washington Times never did we see, read or hear anything on the networks, never by an AQ, Reuters et al source, ever.
What was making it into print had an awful lot of people swearing they'd elect the scumbag to a 3rd, 4th ad infinitum term if only they could.
Yea baby, the power of propaganda *&* a public who trusts -- implicitly -- what they read in their *local* newspaper or see on their TV.

"The benefit(s) of this arrangement have made themselves pretty clear though: Full control of the product and no apparent accountability to those that actually receive that product. Neat huh?"

Oh it's neat, alright.
But it's the *accountability* or really lack thereof which brings to the AQ its real power.
Couple the anonymity with the First Amendment and lookout, pal.

>Yea something would give but it'd continue on, nonetheless.
"Very likely, but at some point if enough member/owners become strapped for cash, the pure weight of the physical plant would become difficult to carry."

Yes, that's true but remember the AQ diversified long ago, didn't just happen yesterday.
We on the Right *like* to think we "own" the Internet but it's far from the truth, now.
Look who supplies "news" one sees at supposedly "right-wing" sites such as Sludge or FoxNews (for example) & 9 outa 10 times it'll be one of the biggies, primarily AQ.
The AQ, they're set.

"Which leads to an interesting question: Just what, if any, physical plant do the crAPweasels have. Rented office space and a handful of PC's???"

That's it.
Telephones (cell or land-line) & fax machines keep the 1,500 AQ "reporters" in touch with one another & an office for the brain-bug to sit on his/her ass while deciding what's terminated & what's not.
Each member paper's Editors pick from whatever the AQ provides and nonmembers simply pay after choosing from the same list.
That's the shtick, they've provided choice but the choice has been prechosen.

Like owning a printing press churning out $100 bills, while, harnessed to a specific ideology.
Infinitely more powerful than just a stack of cash is *influence*, eh?

"So, you may be dead on re the crAPweasels. They may be sittin' pretty whilst their member/owners are circling the drain. Funny."

*Print* media members circling the drain my friend, not all.
Just remember *we* may not have heard all the detail(s), BUT, the BIG print media Liberal-Socialists have diversified & been diversifying for some time to Internet, entertainment *and* television based venues.

So, don't feel too sorry for 'em.

...& never take your eye off the ball. ;^)

Alrighty then, let me begin by saying I really should modify my original statement you responded to; that is that most of our big dailies in the early 20th century were cheerleaders for socialism. Not all. There were still some American newspapers around at the time.

At mid 20th century there were still competing newspapers; many identifying themselves by party affiliation. There were even competing(idealogical?) major dailies well up into the 80's - early 90's; Houston Post vs Houston Chronicle being one example. While there's no question the Chronicle was and is a leftist rag, the Post IMO was not as far left(like FoxNews) as the Chronicle and was the paper of choice of most Republicans. A curious story behind the Post's demise BTW. They were essentially bought, then scuttled. The remains picked over by Hearst, who coincidentally owned the Chronicle.

It's difficult for me to lay the blame for our socialist leaning MSM fully at the feet of the lazy unwashed since, for most of the 20th century, "conservative" newspapers were still around, albeit with diminishing influence as the century rocked along. The conspiratorial part of me says there were other factors at play although I can't put my hands on anything in particular. Human nature would lead us to suspect that powerful people are almost always in the market for things that will consolidate and expand their power. That quest for power, like the quest for $'s, is an illness that can never be cured IMO, and when left unchecked can lead to all manner of problems.

On that note, the idle rich have been with us through the ages and what drives them is probably a curiousity to most of us. For the most well heeled, those at the top of the food chain, it would seem the drive towards social-isms is based on their belief they will be able to consolidate their power while at the same time eliminating or reducing their competition. Just a suspicion, but I'd bet a sawbuck the PTB have studied the shortcomings of previous efforts at socialism, and probably feel they may have it figured out. This time it will be different???

Would ramble some more, but chores are calling.

LS, would you mind also critiquing my rant and make any additions, subtractions, changes. BTW, still awaiting the history of the media.

>The AQ -- whateverinthehell *it* "is" -- was "sold" right about the time Clintigula was elected for the first time, 1993 I believe.
"I'm not aware of any transaction or realignment of the AP during that period of time(unless there was something under the table???). Their HISTORY doesn't indicate anything either."

Welllll, lemme see.
You'd send me *to* the AQ to get the rundown *on* the AQ written *by* the AQ?
HA!!

"What have I missed my friend?"

Ummmmm, *who* you listen to for certain fact(s) regarding certain *things*?
Just guessing, mind you.

Wished I had the resources ("Nexus"?) for ferreting-out that exact date, Curtis.
But I clearly recall the sale, and I'm too young to be experiencing [any] dementia yet, I *think*. :o)

In the same time-frame -- 92ish-93ish -- the AQ changed (Fill in the Blank) I also clearly recall hearing "news" -- from somewhere -- the United States of America was going to be experiencing drastic changes in the way their "news" was going to be presented.
I recall the source saying the "news" we get would become a LOT more in line with what the Europeans were getting.
I took [that] to mean "news" would become more "Tabloid", and it certainly has.
Right?

>Just remember *we* may not have heard all the detail(s), BUT, the BIG print media Liberal-Socialists have diversified & been diversifying for some time to Internet, entertainment *and* television based venues.
"That seems true enough..."

Well, we're in agreement on something anyway.
Thank God, today's been a real bugger.
Starting with my learning the outcome of the local & national political races; which, led directly to informing my beautiful bride her family -- all Liberal-Socialists -- will not be welcome in *my* home for any reason, beginning with Thanksgiving.
Hellova way to start the day, ol' pal.
Say what're you doing for T'giving? {g}

"...but they may be late to the dance and more importantly where news is concerned, people that cruise the internet are for the most part "hip" to their game."

Liberal-Socialists "cruise the net" too, my friend.
Don't believe me?
Start with www.democrat-underground.com & go from there.
They'reeeeeeee herrrrrreeeeee.

"And FWIW, most of the broadcast media aren't exactly setting the world on fire right now."

After what we just witnessed you can say that with certainty, huh.
Waylon Jennings sang some sage advice in a beautiful song he wrote, said: "Be careful of something that's just what you want it to be".
I understand you're way to wily to let that happen, but hell I've done it so it's easy, happens to the best of us.

"Hollyweird???"

Yea, especially Hollweird.
Motion pictures with themes that're anti-capitalist, anti-conservative, anti-religion & twice as many with pro-homosexual etc themes are the rule, not the exception and its been like that since, when?
Say 1993, or so?

The young skulls full of mush as well as those old enough to know better actually believe much of the crap they watch on the silvery screen/television.
That's a fact.
So it only makes sense for Liberal-Socialists to get Hollyweird on the same ideological page is crucial to any Liberal-Socialist agenda.
And so it is.

"It may take several years to see how this will all shake out."

We shall see.
Pelosi & Co are not going to permit this opportunity to slip through their fingers, not on your life.
If you & I thought the propaganda from AQ etc was bad before, we ain't seen nothing yet.
Just wait'll the incoming Liberal-Socialists get going with their *plans&, the purveyors of bullshit are all set & ready to fallout to give 'em the best cover money can buy.
Wager? ;^)

"Do we have time?"

Yea, nothing but.

...where the hell we goin'?

Wished I had the resources ("Nexus"?) for ferreting-out that exact date...

You have obviously run into the same problem I have trying to investigate the investigators. It's the rare piece indeed that writes about the crAPweasels instead of the other way around. Shadowy bunch, eh?

But I clearly recall the sale, and I'm too young to be experiencing [any] dementia yet, I *think*. :o)

Wouldn't bet on it! heh,heh

Anyway, I'm gonna go with your memory because I seem to have a vague recollection of something going down with this bunch around the time you suggest. Ownership itself seems to be out since they still appear to maintain their "cooperative" status.....FWIW. It's possible they set a new(?) course to align themselves more with the worldwide press thereby improving the worldwide customer/member base??? I dunno.

After what we just witnessed you can say that with certainty, huh.

Ack! I wasn't very clear on my original comment which is to say, the networks' financials aren't looking all that good. Their reach and influence has been marginally diminished. And yeah, the most recent election cycle is anecdotal testimony to their still considerable influence.

...where the hell we goin'?

Crazy, but that's just me ;^)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.