Media Bombardment Of Contradictions

[babesagainstmachines]

It's now around 2.5 years since I developed an interest in the economy. It's largely thanks to members of this site that I began to look into it, and I thank you all for that.

One thing is particularly noticeable, and you can call me a tin foil hatter of you like...

The media's roles seems to be to obfuscate, confuse and generally overload with information. It present many different points of view, which swing from bearish to bullish and back on an almost daily basis.

One minute bankers are killing themselves, the next they are all getting bigger bonuses than before.

Houses go from overvalued and unaffordable, to being "snapped up by savvy cash buyers" in the blink of an eye.

One minute the economy is in free fall, and the next someone is saying we will be home and dry by Christmas.

The price of oil goes up and down like a yoyo, and Joe Public is told that expensive petrol is a good thing, because it means the economy is recovering, rather than us basically being stiffed by our suppliers.

Final salary pensions are no longer affordable we are told, the next day the pension fund boss gets a massive pay rise.

We cant afford to pay more tax, but we can afford to pay stealth taxes through inflation and currency debasement.

Quantitative Easing is neccessary, but Government the debt is too high (how the hell else are we going to avoid deflation when private lending has disappeared and asset values are plummeting).

So I've come to a conclusion. The media's job is not to report the facts, it is to keep us confused. In this economic crisis, the facts are actually very simple, and if they explained it everyone could stop panciking and stomping their feet and get the problems solved. Unfortunately, newspapers seem to be owned by extremely wealthy, influential men, and it is unlikely that we will have anything as simple as "Debt bubbles" explained, as they have made their fortunes by gaming the current system.

[Bloo Loo]

This wasnt a problem when there were only two channels and the radio, which was Beeb.

today, its very easy to get information overload.

[Timm]

The problem is that everyone seems to think they have to have a "position" and a "point of difference".

After all, if everyone was just right, there would be no need for so many to comment.

That holds true here too.

[interestrateripoff]

Everyone is just guessing, it's just that some are better guesses than others.

As said above information overload.

[VeryMeanReversion]

So I've come to a conclusion. The media's job is not to report the facts, it is to keep us confused. In this economic crisis, the facts are actually very simple,

The media's job is to sell media.

Since facts changes slowly over time yet media is sold on a daily basis, any excuse is good enough to keep changing the story.

VMR.

[Austin Allegro]

The media's job is to sell media.

Since facts changes slowly over time yet media is sold on a daily basis, any excuse is good enough to keep changing the story.

VMR.

Agreed. I work in the media and really can't see any shadowy cartels trying to influence public opinion (apart from the BBC of course )

If that is going on, it's being done by the think tanks and policy wonks with their tame MPs.

[No Teacher - No Guru]

The global economy is complex, any system with 6 billion participants cannot be anything else.

There are millions of different interests at play within the global economy, these interests do not often converge and are often directly in conflict with each other.

Politics is the attempt to resolve these different interests without physical violence.

There is no simple solution.

[Charterhouse]

The media's job is to sell media.

Since facts changes slowly over time yet media is sold on a daily basis, any excuse is good enough to keep changing the story.

VMR.

Yeah, this.

I understand what you're saying, but there's no need to be so sceptical.

If you had 50 pages of news to fill you'd change your mind every day too...

[Si1]

The media's roles seems to be to obfuscate, confuse and generally overload with information. It present many different points of view, which swing from bearish to bullish and back on an almost daily basis.

tbh, economists are like this on the whole, so maybe it's a reflection of that...

[No Teacher - No Guru]

As well as being complex due to the huge numbers of people acting in the world, there is the problem that economics is not really a science, there are as many models of how the economy behaves as there are economists.

[Moo]

The media's job is to sell media.

Since facts changes slowly over time yet media is sold on a daily basis, any excuse is good enough to keep changing the story.

VMR.

Precisely. The presented story has to change repeatedly regardless of what actually happens, otherwise the news media would be unable to fill their pages \ schedules. Chuck in the need to editorialise* absolutely everything, and that's pretty much all you need to know to understand what you're being presented with.

* As far as the economy is concerned, you could literally present the stats and nothing else, but I doubt very much whether anyone would be able to make money out of selling what would amount to load of spreadsheets to the public at large.

[Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable]

I demand tits and scandal.

Give me tits and scandal.

[Bloo Loo]

I demand tits and scandal.

Give me tits and scandal.

Birdwatchers weekly will help your demand sir.

theres a nesting battle right outside my window Im about to tell the newsdesk about.

[Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable]

Birdwatchers weekly will help your demand sir.

theres a nesting battle right outside my window Im about to tell the newsdesk about.

Young bird not feeding her young properly?

Leaving youngsters unattended while she hangs around singing repetitive tunes?

You don't see your average bluetit getting the grief that Britney Spears has had.

It's about time Harriet Harman addressed this speciesist national disgrace of the media.

[Bloo Loo]

Young bird not feeding her young properly?

Leaving youngsters unattended while she hangs around singing repetitive tunes?

You don't see your average bluetit getting the grief that Britney Spears has had.

It's about time Harriet Harman addressed this speciesist national disgrace of the media.

[tim123]

It's now around 2.5 years since I developed an interest in the economy. It's largely thanks to members of this site that I began to look into it, and I thank you all for that.

One thing is particularly noticeable, and you can call me a tin foil hatter of you like...

The media's roles seems to be to obfuscate, confuse and generally overload with information. It present many different points of view, which swing from bearish to bullish and back on an almost daily basis.

It's the media's role to put company's press releases in front of the masses.

If you think that the journos/editors have the slightest understanding of that which they are "copying", then you will usually be wrong.

tim

[Sybil13]

This wasnt a problem when there were only two channels and the radio, which was Beeb.

today, its very easy to get misinformation overload.

edit for sp error

[VeryMeanReversion]

I understand what you're saying, but there's no need to be so sceptical.

I think there is a genuine need to be sceptical. Admittedly, I can take it too far but the characteristic has served me well. A scepticsm filter is quite handy in seeing the motives behind many actions.

There are many people not acting in our best interests, particulary the housing VI's and the PR industry. I read the local property pages this weekend, the articles presented as news were shocking. The logic was basically "approvals are up so this is the best time to buy a house", "lenders want to lend and buyers want to borrow so this is the best time to buy a house", etc. Every logical neuron went into overload.

It's an easy step to cynicism then paranoia and finally buying gold so stop watching me, I know you're there, 100% guaranteed

VMR.

[Sybil13]

The global economy is complex, any system with 6 billion participants cannot be anything else.

There are millions of different interests at play within the global economy, these interests do not often converge and are often directly in conflict with each other.

Politics is the attempt to resolve these different interests without physical violence.

There is no simple solution.

Not sure politics is about attempting to resolve different interests instead I feel it is more about supporting that which brings power. I came across this article a few weeks ago The Expense of New Labour

I am not saying I agree with everything the article said but it made some interesting points about power.

Is there, in other words, a recognisable connection between the politics of New Labour and the fall from grace of individual Labour standard-bearers? The first evidence of this was the emphasis placed by the New Labour project on doing whatever was necessary in order to win power, even if that meant the abandonment of principle. Opinions may differ on whether the junking of much that had been considered to be core Labour values was really required for electoral victory - and no one can doubt that the way in which those values should be applied to the issues of the twenty-first century was overdue for re-appraisal.

But what was surprising about New Labour was the enthusiasm shown, not just for change and renewal, but for the positive adoption of a quite different agenda – one that had hitherto been seen, with its acceptance that the market should not be challenged and that growing inequality was the necessary condition for economic development, as the property of the right. The Labour Party found itself cut adrift from its traditional emphasis on the central role of government as defender of the weak, as a counter-force to an unfettered market and as a guarantor that everyone shared in growing prosperity.

As it floated free from its traditional moorings, little wonder that a new generation of Labour leaders became confused about what they were in politics for. If policy dictated that unashamed greed was indeed the irreplaceable mainspring of economic advance, how could it be wrong to act on those same precepts in one’s own life?

The whole thrust of the Blair government was, after all, that politics didn’t really matter, and indeed were best eschewed altogether. The Blair pitch was always that, if voters elected the right people (“pretty straight sort of guysâ€), they could safely forget about politics which would become nothing more than an annoying distraction – the domain of a few fanatics. The Labour Party was assured that it did not need political analysis or a programme for real reform.

But without that analysis and programme, what was power for? The question matters little to the right; power for them is the means by which the pace and direction of change can be controlled and, at times, completely frustrated. But for the left, power is surely a means to an end, to a different and better society – one which shares its benefits with everyone.

But that, too, was denied by New Labour. For them, the purpose of power was not to use it but to enjoy it and extend it. Power was a state of being, not a path to change. The over-riding priority of New Labour was always, from the first day of taking power, to retain it by winning the next election. Power as the instrument of change would be limited to those measures that did not alienate powerful interests and thereby jeopardise the perpetuation of power.

That is why controlling the agenda through spin, why manipulating events through a mastery of the minutiae, of the often grubby day-to-day detail of politics, became the leit-motifs of New Labour government. They rarely bothered to lift their eyes to wider horizons or to re-connect with their core values. Tomorrow’s headlines were always their prime concern.

Little wonder, then, that New Labour leaders lost their way. Short-term advantage, politically and personally, was all that mattered. The Labour Party is paying a heavy price for that distorted view of what left politics should be about.

I am not particularly a political animal, left/right , good / bad, bull /bear simply aspects of duality, take either one to any extreme you get the other .

If people vote conservative because the Labour party left the country broke, quite how they think we will get anything different is beyond me.

There was an article a few weeks back saying CML Mortgage set to be a key election issue , sadly the article did not reflect that they would be a key issue on the basis of the electorate wanting to see sustainable and sensible lending, but that is hardly surprising given, as the OP pointed out, the totally contradictory information slanted towards GOODS NEWS THE PROPERTY MARKET IS GOING BACK UP, that people are fed on a daily basis.

Labour bad if my property is now worth less.

Labour good if my property is worth more.

Labour bad if I can't get a 100% mortgage a 7x's my income to buy an overvalued property.

Labour good if I can.

I guess if the standard of articles in the press were not what the vast majority of us want then we would see a sea change in journalism.

Most people want from the press what they want from the soaps , distraction , most people don't want to know what is going on around them finding life hard enough even in the midst of being driven to total distraction.

[CokeSnortingTory]

All I do is look for sources that I generally trust or find interesting and stick with them: e.g. Mish, AEP, Charles Hugh Smith, Michael Hudson etc.

Don't agree with them all the time, but as they have a consistent narrative, and a good track record of prediction it does give me a clear-ish view of what is happening.

[Jim B.]

It would help if they used genuine 'experts' to give opinions, and not VI's. How on earth can it be impartial if you are asking an estate agent to comment on house prices? That's like asking a bookie if gambling is morally evil.

I do think the BBC have been warned not to worry the poor stupid people and reassure everyone that everything is just fine.

[babesagainstmachines]

Some good comments on here which I don't have time to responed to at the moment, sorry.. and thanks

My main area of scepticism comes from no mainstream media outlet questioning the validity of banking. It's always just that someone made some mistakes, and these snowballed into bigger mistakes. They never question the validity of banking, despite that fact that in past times it has been accepted that usury is wrong. There's never any question of wether ever expanding money supply is a good thing. There's never a sensible explanation of why wealthy countries have such massive levels of government and private debt.

[West Hampstead]

Yeah, this.

I understand what you're saying, but there's no need to be so sceptical.

If you had 50 pages of news to fill you'd change your mind every day too...

Exactly. There are few journalists researching and writing real news. Its all just filler and you can find enough facts to back up any statement.

It is important though because people act on what they read in 1 days news. eg It was reported once that the MMR jab caused autism, newspapers wrote i up, hyped it up, thousands of children were not immunised, then the whole scientific community agree there is absolutely no evidence of this link, the original study was of 20 cases, but that is not a big enough, paper selling story to be headlined.