After the republican presidential candidate loss, the immediate response from those who occupy the “Wingdom of the Far Right” started blaming the “liberal media”.
Apparently, the liberal media is defined as any source to the left of conservative media source Fox News. From the comments across social media platforms, Fox News viewers and pundits believe in the “Fair and Balanced” branding associated with the channel.
Branding is a marketing concept, not an idea based on reality.
In fact, back in 2009, journalist Philip Rachlist wrote:
The United States media follows a liberal model, but not as opposed to a conservative one. We follow a liberal model as opposed to a polarized pluralist or democratic corporatist model. In this respect the liberal model is one in which state intervention is limited and where the profession of journalism centers on the objectivity norm. The polarized pluralist model is one in which newspapers are not market-driven but are an intellectual vehicle for elite discussion, and the democratic corporatist model combines features of the first two.
Rachlist concluded bluntly, “Newspapers which follow the liberal model tend to be politically neutral. So next time you hear someone call the press the liberal media, tell them they are right, then calmly explain to them that they don’t know what they are talking about.”
If anyone was watching CBS the past several weeks, you would think this so-called “liberal media network” fit more into the “non-intellectual corporatist” model, or a sounding board for corporate America CEO’s. These CEO tycoons have been in Washington meeting with our political leaders as representatives of a group called “Fix the Debt”.
As we mentioned before the election, you could almost feel the posturing for the “grand bargain” where tax increases on the wealthy would be supported if cuts were made to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
Goldman Sachs CEO, Lloyd Blankfein was on the CBS Nightly News twice within a week, and he epitomizes how out of touch these guys are with average Americans. Even when they try, they just can’t seem to grasp the suffering going on within the U.S.
The income disparity in the US has created class division more pronounced now than ever, and the last election was a warning shot over the bow.
Despite this widening disparity, Lloyd Blankfein stared into the cameras and said:
Social Security wasn’t devised to be a system that supported you for a 30-year retirement after a 25-year career. So there will be certain things that the retirement age has to be changed, maybe some of the benefits have to be affected, maybe some of the inflation adjustments have to be revised.
Who works for 25 years at $10.00 an hour then retires? Who do you know that retires in their mid-40’s and then lives out a life of luxury on social security?
Mr. Blankfein was invited back a second night to state sacrifices will have to be made by all Americans. We wonder if he approves of the republican Congress who shifted cuts in defense to cutting away the social safety net for poor, disabled and senior citizens?
With a complete lack of understanding, Mr. Blankfein shared his views on the fiscal cliff:
Look, if we go over the fiscal cliff it will be very bad, hugely bad–hugely negative for the stock market, which is, you know, a source of people’s wealth, people will feel poor.
We don’t think that people in America “feel poor” when over 50 million Americans are poor. Changes in stock market prices mean nothing to people who are camping out in their own house after the bank has foreclosed and power has been shut off. Living on $674 a month from social security leaves you with no discretionary income.
Out of touch doesn’t even come close to describing these guys.
While the pundits and sore losers continue to clamor about “liberal media bias” among our main stream media sources, and our plutocracy tells us about how “going over the fiscal cliff will make us feel poor”, let’s all refer them to Mr. Rachlist’s comments by informing them, “You don’t know what you’re talking about.”