Goldman Sachs & J.P. Morgan Quietly Buying Up the Media

Started by MikeWB, September 27, 2009, 02:41:01 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

MikeWB

And they're doing it with our money! We bailed them out and now they want to own everything.

QuoteGoldman Sachs & J.P. Morgan Quietly Buying Up the Media
by Badabing

   
Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 05:55:37 PM PDT

Every since the Corporations have bought up the media, the very idea of 'honest journalism' has been a joke in America.  

I grew up with the likes of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite - I KNOW what real and honest journalism is all about.  

The 'propaganda' corporate machine that rules the airwaves now, is nothing more than a tool to control the message/masses, and at all costs, whatever 'they' do 'they' will make certain that stories like the one on Sibel Edmonds (on the diary recommended list) never, ever see the light of day.  God forbid, America should hear the 'truth' about America and England planning to divide up Iraq months prior to 9/11.    

Badabing's diary :: ::
Still, I must give people like Bill Moyers, Keith Olbermann and Rachael Maddow credit, where credit is due.  But sometimes I wonder how much longer we will have even an iota of what little 'journalistic integrity' is left on our television sets and radios.  That is why the below story caught my eye.

J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. are also among radio stations' leading lenders.
   

   

Goldman Sachs and other lenders just swapped debt for 85% of Nassau Broadcasting Partners LP's equity. Nassau operates 51 radio stations along the East Coast. Nassau had to put its Cape Cod, Mass., stations into a separate company, because Goldman has another radio investment in Cape Cod and didn't want its stake to cause a conflict with the FCC.

Throw companies like Tribune into the mix where JP Morgan will allegedly end up with an majority equity stake, and one wonders why Goldman and JPM were so eager to provide "rescue" financings to virtually the entire distressed media space: both companies knew too well that sooner or later they would end up with full equity control over essentially the most coveted industry: thousands of TV stations, radio channels, newspaper and magazines. If you thought the media propaganda was unbearable now, just wait. Nonetheless, one doubts that much will be made by the FCC of JP Morgan's or Goldman Sachs' stealthily encroaching control of the entire media world. After all, they already pretty much already control the airwaves. This way their domination of the 4th estate and the idiot tube will soon be complete.

Alas, all these funds operate primarily out of their offshore accounts. So while they just now start the long, hard process of convincing the FCC they have nothing but the best P&L intentions, Goldman and JPM, or better known as the Treasury and the Fed, will have long cemented their controlling stakes in a streamlined, deleveraged media industry.

Somehow I doubt very seriously if the FCC will need 'much' convincing, but is certainly does not bode well for our country. Goldman Sachs - the great Squid - has it's tentacles in everything these days - our government - the Congress - the Federal Reserve -  and now they are buying up the media.  Too big to fail?  Or too big and protected by the very Corporations that own our government?

"... the media serve the interests of state and corporate power, which are closely interlinked, framing their reporting and analysis in a manner supportive of established privilege and limiting debate and discussion accordingly."

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate."

                                               Noam Chomsky

Every day, the media gets more inane.  So I thought since Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan will be our new 'media masters' in the upcoming months - perhaps we should do a small review of what they have accomplished to date:

from Glen Greenwald at Salon:

Exactly as one would expect, the prime beneficiaries of all of that pillaging continue to grow. The banks that almost brought the world economy to collapse but then received massive public largesse because they were "too big to fail" are now bigger than ever; as The Washington Post delicately put it: "The crisis may be turning out very well for many of the behemoths that dominate U.S. finance." Everything involving the government turns out well for these "behemoths" because they own and control the U.S. Government. Just this week, The Post detailed how the government and Wall St. are now so intertwined that banking executives are spending vast resources to increase their presence in Washington:

.....

As previously documented, Goldman Sachs itself has a virtual lock on the top Treasury positions no matter which party is in power. The vaunted bipartisan "Baucus plan" was literally written by a Baucus aide who just left her position as Vice President of Wellpoint to write the health care reform plan for the Senate -- a revelation which barely caused a ripple. And the Supreme Court is on the verge of striking down the few limits on corporate involvement in our politics, a ruling which may (or may not be) constitutionally defensible but which will flood American politics with so much corporate money that it will give new meaning to the term "oligarchy."

So with this massive pillaging of America's economic security and the control of American government by its richest and most powerful factions growing by the day, to whom is America's intense economic anxiety being directed?

Here is how Goldman Sachs started 'taking over our country':

Consider below a simple time line from one of the strangest periods our financial markets had ever experienced. As you read it, keep in mind that following the demise of Bear Stearns, the strictest interpretation of the so-called investment bank "Bulge Bracket" included just four entities: Goldman Sachs (GS), Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley (MS).

   * September 9: The short attack on Lehman Brothers begins in earnest.
   * September 14: The New York Times (NYT) reports Lehman will file bankruptcy.
   * September 15: Goldman Sachs share price begins to wilt. Merrill Lynch announces it will be sold to Bank of America.
   * September 17: Goldman Sachs' share price continues to plummet. The SEC announces "new rules to protect investors against naked short selling abuses".
   * September 18: Goldman Sachs' share price continues to plummet.
   * September 19: The SEC "halts short selling of financial stocks to protect investors and markets".  Goldman Sachs' share price posts a strong gain.
   * September 22: Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, the two remaining members of the "Bulge Bracket" announce their intentions to transition to bank holding companies, giving them access to lending facilities of the US Federal Reserve (an organization with which Goldman has an uncommonly tight relationship).

The most interesting event to come of that most eventful period may have been the SEC's September 19 ban on legitimate short selling. What makes it so enigmatic is the fact that not even the most vocal opponents of illegal naked short selling have ever even hinted at the need to restrict legitimate shorting. In fact, Patrick Byrne himself compared the ban to limiting motorists to making only right-hand turns. Here is a theory that might explain what was going on.

An examination of the volume of both naked and legitimate shorting of Goldman Sachs in September of 2008 reveals something very interesting: while there was an enormous amount of short selling taking place, there was essentially no naked shorting of Goldman shares. Indeed, short selling accounted for a third of total volume on September 15 and 16, while failed trades accounted for less than 0.07%, suggesting shortable Goldman shares were in abundant supply.  This conclusion is supported by an analysis of the stock loan rebate rate that prevailed for Goldman shares during the period in question: a very reliable indicator of the scarcity of shares available for short sellers to borrow, where a lower rebate rate indicates a more limited supply.

http://www.marketrap.com/...

There is a 'silent coup d'état' going on in our nation.  Of course, this very silent coup d'état would never be mentioned 'out loud' by anyone in the 'media'- and people will of course refer to any such idea of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan taking over our nation' media as nothing more than just another 'conspiracy theory'.  That is the excuse that both Goldman Sachs and the Federal Reserve throw out whenever anyone dares to get to close to look behind the curtain.  

But the facts are out there for anyone to see. It's getting very scary out there in America when - what 'too big to fail' really means is: 'too big for anyone to question.'

Michael Moore wants Goldman Sachs investigated - so do I:

1) No link? Select some text from the story, right click and search for it.
2) Link to TiU threads. Bring traffic here.

Father Brown

Very upsetting. However, I stopped reading here, at least for now.  

QuoteI grew up with the likes of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite - I KNOW what real and honest journalism is all about.
This writer obviously has not stepped out of the box far enough, for Murrow and Cronkite had nothing to do with honest journalism. There really is no such thing. Even Jefferson once said that if you want to find truth in a newspaper you should have to read the advertisments.

That's not to say there might not be more useful information in the article. If accurate, the writer has done his job in presenting a fact. But that's about it. His idea that there ever was such a thing as honest journalism is flawed. It is an oxymoron.

MikeWB

Quote from: "Father Brown"Very upsetting. However, I stopped reading here, at least for now.  

QuoteI grew up with the likes of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite - I KNOW what real and honest journalism is all about.
This writer obviously has not stepped out of the box far enough, for Murrow and Cronkite had nothing to do with honest journalism. There really is no such thing. Even Jefferson once said that if you want to find truth in a newspaper you should have to read the advertisments.

That's not to say there might not be more useful information in the article. If accurate, the writer has done his job in presenting a fact. But that's about it. His idea that there ever was such a thing as honest journalism is flawed. It is an oxymoron.

What they offered was million times better than what we have now. At least they said what they thought so your criticism is kinda hollow.

As for honest journalism, it doesn't exist and it can never exist since all facts can be manipulated and sometimes we will never know what's the truth.
1) No link? Select some text from the story, right click and search for it.
2) Link to TiU threads. Bring traffic here.

Father Brown

That's not true. What they said was not a million times better, or any better. In fact, what they said made it possible for today's media environment to exist in its present form.

The only thing that was better was that we as a country were better and they couldn't get away with the shit that today's journalists get away with. But, they planted the seeds, my friend. Today's media have reaped what they helped to sow. Period. End of story.

MikeWB

Quote from: "Father Brown"That's not true. What they said was not a million times better, or any better. In fact, what they said made it possible for today's media environment to exist in its present form.

The only thing that was better was that we as a country were better and they couldn't get away with the shit that today's journalists get away with. But, they planted the seeds, my friend. Today's media have reaped what they helped to sow. Period. End of story.

Are you telling me that newsmen of that day had to worry about pissing off all the advertisers that they have to worry about today?
1) No link? Select some text from the story, right click and search for it.
2) Link to TiU threads. Bring traffic here.

scorpio

MikeWB knows all!!!!
When are you morons gonna get it?!!!

MikeWB

Quote from: "scorpio11"MikeWB knows all!!!!
When are you morons gonna get it?!!!

WTF is your problem? You trolling now?
1) No link? Select some text from the story, right click and search for it.
2) Link to TiU threads. Bring traffic here.

scorpio

Sorry Mike, I don't know your slang term 'trolling'
It has just been my observation that you seem to have an answer for all of the mysteries of the universe.
You have a habit of locking threads - anything that you don't personally like or agree with.
This is all IMHO, of course.

MikeWB

Quote from: "scorpio11"Sorry Mike, I don't know your slang term 'trolling'
It has just been my observation that you seem to have an answer for all of the mysteries of the universe.
You have a habit of locking threads - anything that you don't personally like or agree with.
This is all IMHO, of course.

It's called arguing. Look that one up as well when you do some research on "trolling" (which I find hard believe that you don't know what it is). When someone says that journalism today is the same as it was 60 years ago, I call them on that bullshit. 60 years ago you could say a lot of things that you can't say today and 60 years ago there were THOUSANDS of newspapers and most were independent and weren't owned by 5 companies. Go print a politically-incorrect news story today and prepare for the wrath of sheeple.

And you call arguing "heavy hand"???? Just keep on "kvetching" and spreading lies about me!!
1) No link? Select some text from the story, right click and search for it.
2) Link to TiU threads. Bring traffic here.

Rockclimber

Ok, now that that's behind us...back to the fight gentlemen! :) :)

GordZilla

That may indeed be true Mike, but I think Father Brown meant something different is his post. IMHO I think he was saying the people in America had a better moral standing back then, you couldn't throw on the TV the smut you do nowadays – you simply would not get away with it, nor would it sell..too fast too soon, as it were. However threw calculated increments the main steam media has almost single-handedly brought the American people (and perhaps most of the world's)  to a place low enough that they can NOW broadcast the sheer filth that they always intended to from the start. I think that is what Father Brown was saying, 'forgive me Father'  :D  if I'm wrong.

 I would add, there seems to be some disagreement out there about whether the main stream media was 'taken over' by them or originally 'created' by them. I personally believe the later, but I guess only Gutenberg would know for sure.

scorpio

Quote from: "MikeWB"It's called arguing. Look that one up as well when you do some research on "trolling" (which I find hard believe that you don't know what it is).

So now you are calling me a liar? I told you I dont know that term 'trolling'. You should read your own rules on how to disagree!!!
And, no, I am not going to waste my time looking up slang words that you choose to use.
I know it is a personal insult of some kind - that's all that matters to me!


Quote from: "MikeWB"And you call arguing "heavy hand"???? Just keep on "kvetching" and spreading lies about me!!
Please give a list of all of the 'lies' that I have spread about you. I would like to see that!!

I merely said that you have a habit of locking threads that you don't personally agree with - you have done it quite a few times in the short time I have been on the forum. That's no lie -  and you know it!

I think I detect a veiled threat in that last statement. Is this the part where you kick me off and call me a nazi?
If so, you really have no clue about who I am. Oh, wait, I forgot, Mikewb knows all  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:
p.s. I don't know the term 'kvetching' either. I don't speak Yiddish as you apparently do.

Father Brown

Quote from: "GordZilla"That may indeed be true Mike, but I think Father Brown meant something different is his post. IMHO I think he was saying the people in America had a better moral standing back then, you couldn't throw on the TV the smut you do nowadays – you simply would not get away with it, nor would it sell..too fast too soon, as it were. However threw calculated increments the main steam media has almost single-handedly brought the American people (and perhaps most of the world's)  to a place low enough that they can NOW broadcast the sheer filth that they always intended to from the start. I think that is what Father Brown was saying, 'forgive me Father'  :D  if I'm wrong.

 I would add, there seems to be some disagreement out there about whether the main stream media was 'taken over' by them or originally 'created' by them. I personally believe the later, but I guess only Gutenberg would know for sure.
Very good insight, Godzilla. It was created by them, not taken over. And I think Gutenberg is a great place to start.

And yes, you are correct in interpreting my thinking. A moral society has a grounding and is able to detect BS more easily. But, even leaving morals aside, let's just look at the two men in question. Cronkite and Murrow.

Cronkite called for a New World Order and was the person who announced that the Viet Nam War was lost at Tet. It was not true. We kicked their butts during the Tet Offensive. That was the final nail in the coffin during that conflict. Whether or not we should have been there is a separate debate. But, I am talking about a turncoat who helped to create a Generation Gap between those who fought in WWII and their sons in Viet Nam. By the way, we take it for granted that there is always a Generation Gap between parents and their children. What a bunch of late 20th Century nonsense that is! The concept of a class of people called teenagers did not even exist until well into the 20th Century. Interestingly enough, it seemed to have a direct correlation to these same people having some disposable money in their pockets and the ability for merchants to sell this group a new lifestlye. Hula-Hoops, Yo-Yos, and Etch-A-Sketchs, were followed by Beatles records as a child became "sophisticated" in this new world of teenage marketing. Their stupid parents didn't understand what was really going on. Right?  

Cronkite then went on to become the prohpet who trumpted NASA and helped to sell the Space Race. That guy sold boatloads of Tang my friend. And he helped to promote another hoax in my opinion, the fake landing of men on the Moon. I have only started to come to that conclusion as of late as I see everything big as nothing but lie after lie. But, even if true, it was a waste of resources for foolish vanity. And Old Uncle Walt helped to sell it to us.  

Edward Murrow? He was good at selling cigarettes. And he was also a hardcore leftie.

Murrow tastes good, like a cigarette should.

The biggest impediment to truth, IMHO, is that people see the BS today, but mistakenly believe there ever was a pure option based on a mass model. Without realizing it, they are simply asking for a more comfortable cage to dwell in. In other words a cage that does not seem to be a cage.  

Politics is the discipline of deciding who gets what, when, and how. Outside of your own family, and close friends, and maybe even a small community, there is no such thing as a pure play.

Father Brown

Quote from: "GordZilla"I would add, there seems to be some disagreement out there about whether the main stream media was 'taken over' by them or originally 'created' by them. I personally believe the later, but I guess only Gutenberg would know for sure.
One other thought I had, concerns the English language.

Yesterday, I began a class to study Latin. I had an epihany of sorts when it was told to me that Latin is not at all based on the order of words. They have a caste system that makes word placement irrelevant. With the correct declension and word endings, "man bites dog" can be understood in Latin to mean "dog bites man".  The order of words is absolutely irrelevant.

This order placement of words coupled with a printing press and making people understand concepts visually, by reading marks on a page, instead of orally was and is a very powerful tool of propaganda. Not that it is bad. It is and can be very good. But, linear thinking on a mass scale could not exist without these tools. Those who wrote were obviously already involved in linear thinking. The difference is, with the printing press and movable type in was possible to guide people down the "primrose path" by giving them linear suggestions and linear instruction.

Milton

An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi