Why does ALL American Media ignore wealth inequality? [W:229]

Geoist said:

There are many legitimate reasons to look down on Wal-Mart/shop elsewhere:

It destroys local business
About 70% of their products are from China. 85% are made outside US.
It destroys wage competition which leads to a bigger need for the welfare you conservatives love to hate.


And no, you do not have to be a rich snob to care about the quality of the products you buy.

Click to expand...

Walmart started out as a local business also.
Obviously their business plan is and was much better than others to have survived and grown. And they make things cheaper for the rest of of us to buy.

And all you can do is poo-poo them. It's nonsense.

Erdmutter said:

As Ray Kroc once said, "McDonald's is not in the hamburger business but in the real estate business."

I would say that the same also holds true for Wal Mart. Yes, they sell cheap goods. But the land they have acquired combined with the zoning favors they have consistently gotten from governments have shoveled an absurd amount of unearned wealth into their pockets.

Click to expand...

Thank you for mentioning this. The abuse of eminent domain is another big one!

The main stream media doesn't address the wealth inequality because they want to hide it from the public. If the public was actually aware of this wealth inequality, they would start a revolution, and the government does not want that. This is why they cover it up. They don't want people to start revolting.

DesuMaiden said:

The main stream media doesn't address the wealth inequality because they want to hide it from the public. If the public was actually aware of this wealth inequality, they would start a revolution, and the government does not want that. This is why they cover it up. They don't want people to start revolting.

Click to expand...

You should also take into account that the major talking heads earn an income in the millions to read the "news".

washunut said:

You should also take into account that the major talking heads earn an income in the millions to read the "news".

Click to expand...

That's just disgraceful. They don't deserve that much money for doing jack ****.

DesuMaiden said:

That's just disgraceful. They don't deserve that much money for doing jack ****.

Click to expand...

I agree. Bet most people don't know what these folks earn.

Ryan5 said:

We live in an oligarchy masquerading as a democracy. That's a good reason to not be thrilled with the situation..

Click to expand...

It's the same here in the UK

Why do the media ignore it ?

Well, as Telekat said earlier , they , or to be more precise the owners , are the ones doing well out of that inequality. I don't think they ignore completely though , certainly not in the UK . But it's way way down the list of preferred topics for the same reasons.

Go back , around 15o years ago and the media coverage was more diverse because it didn't suffer from so much corporate ownership. Here in the UK there were quite a few newspapers that expressed the concerns and grievances of the ordinary people , in short a more left wing analysis.

To scupper this situation the laws were changed so as to allow for advertising in the newspapers. Obviously big businesses wouldn't advertise in left wing papers , only right wing ones. The extra revenue from this advertising was used to offset the cost of producing the paper and it could be sold at a lower price.

Many poorer people thus shifted to the cheaper papers and over a period of time the left wing media couldn't sustain itself against the competition and disappeared. The last bastions went out of business around 40 years ago

The same thing probably happened in the states but I don't really know for sure

Geoist said:

Thank you for mentioning this. The abuse of eminent domain is another big one!

Click to expand...

Eminent domain is the SCOTUS decision in recent years that frosts me more than any other.

tres borrachos said:

Eminent domain is the SCOTUS decision in recent years that frosts me more than any other.

Click to expand...

Greetings, tres borrachos. :2wave:

I still don't understand how they could justify taking private property - the ones I've read about all seem to be based on someone's desire to own what someone else has so they can build what they want on the site - and then call it "progress for the common good?" Generally :bs IMO!

polgara said:

Greetings, tres borrachos. :2wave:

I still don't understand how they could justify taking private property - the ones I've read about all seem to be based on someone's desire to own what someone else has so they can build what they want on the site - and then call it "progress for the common good?" Generally :bs IMO!

Click to expand...

Hi Pol, it was an outrageous decision, and IMO one of the darkest days in the history of SCOTUS. To me it screamed "unconstitutional" but they apparently disagreed. Amazing.

oneworld2 said:

It's the same here in the UK

Why do the media ignore it ?

Well, as Telekat said earlier , they , or to be more precise the owners , are the ones doing well out of that inequality. I don't think they ignore completely though , certainly not in the UK . But it's way way down the list of preferred topics for the same reasons.

Go back , around 15o years ago and the media coverage was more diverse because it didn't suffer from so much corporate ownership. Here in the UK there were quite a few newspapers that expressed the concerns and grievances of the ordinary people , in short a more left wing analysis.

To scupper this situation the laws were changed so as to allow for advertising in the newspapers. Obviously big businesses wouldn't advertise in left wing papers , only right wing ones. The extra revenue from this advertising was used to offset the cost of producing the paper and it could be sold at a lower price.

Many poorer people thus shifted to the cheaper papers and over a period of time the left wing media couldn't sustain itself against the competition and disappeared. The last bastions went out of business around 40 years ago

The same thing probably happened in the states but I don't really know for sure

Click to expand...

Newspapers are simply dead among people under 45 nowadays thanks to the internet.



Me being 26, I have to say that I don't feel this is a bad thing. The left and right to an extent (the people) have simply moved to the internet. The internet is a better medium. It is extremely hard to censor completely. This thread is a perfect example. Sure this forum isn't thrilled about this thread and would prefer it not exist. That said, thanks to the open nature of the internet if this thread was highly censored it would ruin the credibility of any forum that enacted such censorship and here's the important part, they know it very much so. It's hard for an internet forum to be a completely biased place such as a newspaper because it's completely open to all factions 24/7 and it's always being judged by said factions 24/7. That's why the internet is a better medium for the people than newspapers.


I could never have truthful pictures of Hillary or Jeb Bush or Chris Christie published in a newspaper. I can on a forum because if it's censored the various factions will take note of that and that forum will lose credibility. With a paper they're paid yesmen. Newspapers are inherently corrupt either way they go politically. An internet forum is a pure entity and is very hard to fully corrupt.

Ryan5 said:

Newspapers are simply dead among people under 45 nowadays thanks to the internet.



Me being 26, I have to say that I don't feel this is a bad thing. The left and right to an extent (the people) have simply moved to the internet. The internet is a better medium. It is extremely hard to censor completely. This thread is a perfect example. Sure this forum isn't thrilled about this thread and would prefer it not exist. That said, thanks to the open nature of the internet if this thread was highly censored it would ruin the credibility of any forum that enacted such censorship and here's the important part, they know it very much so. It's hard for an internet forum to be a completely biased place such as a newspaper because it's completely open to all factions 24/7 and it's always being judged by said factions 24/7. That's why the internet is a better medium for the people than newspapers.


I could never have truthful pictures of Hillary or Jeb Bush or Chris Christie published in a newspaper. I can on a forum because if it's censored the various factions will take note of that and that forum will lose credibility. With a paper they're paid yesmen. Newspapers are inherently corrupt either way they go politically. An internet forum is a pure entity and is very hard to fully corrupt.

Click to expand...

The stuff about the newspapers was just to give an example of how the rich and powerful work and conspire to bring down any who challenge them. I know most younger people get their stuff from the net today.

That said , even this new medium has its problems

I don't know whether you recall the fake antisemitic poster that turned funding away from the Common Dreams site

Like many other news websites, Common Dreams has been plagued by inflammatory anti-Semitic comments following its stories. But on Common Dreams these posts have been so frequent and intense they have driven away donors from a nonprofit dependent on reader generosity. A Common Dreams investigation has discovered that more than a thousand of these damaging comments over the past two years were written with a deceptive purpose by a Jewish Harvard graduate in his thirties who was irritated by the website's discussion of issues involving Israel.

His intricate campaign, which he has admitted to Common Dreams, included posting comments by a screen name, "JewishProgressive," whose purpose was to draw attention to and denounce the anti-Semitic comments that he had written under many other screen names.

Click to expand...

The Double Identity of an "Anti-Semitic" Commenter | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

I don't think that this will be an isolated case either

oneworld2 said:

The stuff about the newspapers was just to give an example of how the rich and powerful work and conspire to bring down any who challenge them. I know most younger people get their stuff from the net today.

That said , even this new medium has its problems

I don't know whether you recall the fake antisemitic poster that turned funding away from the Common Dreams site



The Double Identity of an "Anti-Semitic" Commenter | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

I don't think that this will be an isolated case either

Click to expand...

No this medium doesn't have its problems. I don't mean to offend you, but all voices need to be heard. I want to hear the Nazis. I want to hear what they have to say. I want to hear the Communists. I want to hear what they have to say. I want to hear the Chinese Nationalists. I want to hear what they have to say. I want to hear the Democrats, the Republicans and the Socialists. I want to hear what they have to say. All voices should be heard.

You might want to truly ask yourself if you are in fact in favor of actual free speech or a specific "version" of it.


The very notion that the internet "has problems" with too much freedom is the very reason it's so great. The instant it "stops having problems" is when it will cease to be great.

Ryan5 said:

No this medium doesn't have its problems.

Click to expand...

I disagree. There's a lot of complete BS to be found on the net and there are a lot of predators/charlatans on it too. I remember a guy who used to visit suicide websites and dupe some vulnerable people into committing suicide packs with him. They killed themselves and he moved on to someone else , the next victim .

I gave you an example of a person who tried to silence the free speech of the Common Dreams community. I'm sure this won't be an isolated case

People being duped into giving money to con men/women etc etc


Like all things man made there are pluses and there are minuses

I don't mean to offend you, but all voices need to be heard. I want to hear the Nazis. I want to hear what they have to say.I want to hear the Communists. I want to hear what they have to say. I want to hear the Chinese Nationalists. I want to hear what they have to say. I want to hear the Democrats, the Republicans and the Socialists. I want to hear what they have to say. All voices should be heard.

Click to expand...

I'm all for listening to what the above groups , and many others , have to say but how do you even know that these people are who they say they are. That's the point I was trying to make to you.

You might want to truly ask yourself if you are in fact in favor of actual free speech or a specific "version" of it.

Click to expand...

The only reason I gave you the story about the demise of the left wing media in the UK was because you had asked the question about why the media doesn't want to talk about wealth inequality. They did want to talk about it , among a whole host of issues the establishment winced at, and because of it they were silenced

Because I stated the above doesn't mean I think only left wing media outlets should be allowed to ply their trade and I don't see how you came to that conclusion tbh

The very notion that the internet "has problems" with too much freedom is the very reason it's so great. The instant it "stops having problems" is when it will cease to be great.

Click to expand...

I don't think it was great when that guy used his free speech to set up people to kill themselves with the sole intention of doing so. Or the other guy who wanted to scupper the Common Dreams site. Or the ones who scuppered the global research forum etc etc do you ? These are very real problems imho and they run counter to your wish to be able to hear the very opinions you claim to want to hear and make up your own mind on

oneworld2 said:

I disagree. There's a lot of complete BS to be found on the net and there are a lot of predators/charlatans on it too. I remember a guy who used to visit suicide websites and dupe some vulnerable people into committing suicide packs with him. They killed themselves and he moved on to someone else , the next victim .

I gave you an example of a person who tried to silence the free speech of the Common Dreams community. I'm sure this won't be an isolated case

People being duped into giving money to con men/women etc etc


Like all things man made there are pluses and there are minuses



I'm all for listening to what the above groups , and many others , have to say but how do you even know that these people are who they say they are. That's the point I was trying to make to you.




The only reason I gave you the story about the demise of the left wing media in the UK was because you had asked the question about why the media doesn't want to talk about wealth inequality. They did want to talk about it , among a whole host of issues the establishment winced at, and because of it they were silenced

Because I stated the above doesn't mean I think only left wing media outlets should be allowed to ply their trade and I don't see how you came to that conclusion tbh



I don't think it was great when that guy used his free speech to set up people to kill themselves with the sole intention of doing so. Or the other guy who wanted to scupper the Common Dreams site. Or the ones who scuppered the global research forum etc etc do you ? These are very real problems imho and they run counter to your wish to be able to hear the very opinions you claim to want to hear and make up your own mind on

Click to expand...

That's all regrettable and all, and it truly is, but actual freedom of speech and freedom of the people to speak their minds is messy. If it's ever not messy then it's fake, such as a Newspaper is fake and always was fake. It was controlled, "clean and tidy" news. It was never the grit, the raw, the dirty yet great commons of the people that the internet is currently.




You can't be for progress, you can't be for true freedom of the people if you intend on shutting down the place the instant a medically unstable person hops on and see's something they can't handle and jumps a cliff. You can't play god. Nobody is guilty for a mentally handicapped person going online and losing their mental state just as nobody is guilty if that same person loses their mental state at a basketball arena.




Who cares if they say they are who they say they are? It's the internet. It's free. It's wild. It's great because of that. The last thing it needs is some horrific massive control mechanism to "assure" that all claimed partisans are actual claimed partisans. You should be able to tell yourself if someone is truly legitimate or a fraud. That's part of the fun.

Wealth inequality? Hmmm, should we all live as they do in Cuba? The haves and have not's. Who should decide who gets what? Who should decide who has what? Would the media be controlled by the haves? Just asking.

Lakeside said:

Wealth inequality? Hmmm, should we all live as they do in Cuba? The haves and have not's. Who should decide who gets what? Who should decide who has what? Would the media be controlled by the haves? Just asking.

Click to expand...

Sweden is a pretty nice place with their Nordic welfare model.

Ryan5 said:

Sweden is a pretty nice place with their Nordic welfare model.

Click to expand...

Socialism is easy with a homogeneous population the size of Florida. Still, Sweden had plenty of problems even before that homogeneity was disturbed.

Ryan5 said:

That's all regrettable and all, and it truly is, but actual freedom of speech and freedom of the people to speak their minds is messy. If it's ever not messy then it's fake, such as a Newspaper is fake and always was fake. It was controlled, "clean and tidy" news. It was never the grit, the raw, the dirty yet great commons of the people that the internet is currently.

Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying about the mainstream media being controlled and I think the internet has forcd their hands to cover stuff the never would have ( because it is all over the social media ) but an honest question.

If your child was one of the victims of that tip rat ( suicide predator ) I referred you to earlier, do you think you would still hold the same views about the internet being " problem free " ?

You can't be for progress, you can't be for true freedom of the people if you intend on shutting down the place the instant a medically unstable person hops on and see's something they can't handle and jumps a cliff. You can't play god. Nobody is guilty for a mentally handicapped person going online and losing their mental state just as nobody is guilty if that same person loses their mental state at a basketball arena.

Click to expand...

I never said it should be shut down because of these things , I just pointed out that ,imo , it has its good points and its bad

Who cares if they say they are who they say they are? It's the internet. It's free. It's wild. It's great because of that. The last thing it needs is some horrific massive control mechanism to "assure" that all claimed partisans are actual claimed partisans. You should be able to tell yourself if someone is truly legitimate or a fraud. That's part of the fun.

Click to expand...

If I wanted to know how a Nazi thinks society should be ordered I wouldn't take some so called Nazis word for it on the internet. I would read some books about it. Same with communists etc etc and I would read from different authors to cross reference. Check the sources and so on and , as I have done with many subjects that have interested me over the years and learn that one mans/womans version/interpretation is different from the next. These are broad churches