Q: Why are media outlets doing such a bad job covering Wall Street?
A: Could it be, because they are owned by Wall Street?
When you connect the dots in your writing or look for deeper explanations behind the decisions of policymakers, market makers and media-makers, it’s easy to be dismissed as a conspiracy nut.
But forgive me for believing that those who serve interests have more clout than those that just speak out on issues. There are hidden relationships that sometimes predetermine what stories get media attention and which do not.
I have a current film out, Plunder the Crime of our Time, taking on big media companies to task for what passes as coverage of the financial crisis. I have been asking why they weren’t paying attention, didn’t warn us about it, or investigate too deeply into how it happened.
When I discovered that dodgy lenders and credit card companies pumped more than $3 billion into media advertising, which inflated the housing bubble between 2002 and 2007, I thought I had my answer.
Based on my own experience inside news networks, I could see that networks investigating their own advertisers in a tough economic climate was not exactly high on their agenda. It happens, but rarely.
Yet, even I, as savvy as I thought I was, missed an important link which was hidden in plain sight -- who owns the very media institutions I was railing against?
So use the link to find out who owns what. Friday, another jobs report is due to be released. In the meantime, David Gura (NPR) notes, "According to Reuters, the number of new claims -- 472,000 -- is 'still too high to signal a change in fortune for the troubled labor market'."
What happened to recovery summer? Summer's almost over. Where's the recovery? Think maybe instead of wasting his time (and our time) Barack should have worked on the economy instead of ObamaCare which was nothing but a gift to Big Pharma and the insurance lobby? Yeah, me too.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Thursday: