Rose Parade Recap:
“Nobody watching the corporate television coverage in Los Angeles or across the nation would be allowed to see the mock-ups of the U.S. Constitution, or decide for themselves how 'awesome' the Occupy Octopus was.”
Now why would a television station owned by Tribune Co. avoid any trace of the Occupy Rose Parade throng and their “awesome” props? It's amazing to watch how corporate interests protect themselves, and their benefactors, from dissent. You really had to try and avoid the story about the floats. There was a lot of interest generated by pre-parade articles, photos and videos of The Octopus and the Corporate Constitution before the parade and the protesters pulled it off without any disruption whatsoever. (Somehow drawing attention away from the corporate billboards (read floats) was deemed to be “disruptive” even before the parade despite the fact that the crowd that took part were about as low-key and mainstream as anyone else that attended the event. (Watch the Insightoutnews.org loop above for more).
Of course when you are paying big bucks for a moving billboard the definition of “news” is left to the corporate-owned media that effectively monopolize what you are entitled to know. As a refresher course, perhaps worth a bookmark for future referene, is the following list of the Big Six. (The Tribune Co., in addition to the Los Angeles Times, owns KTLA Channel 5 in Los Angeles, one of the two broadcasters that offered a sanitized version of the parade. The Tribune Co. bankruptcy proceedings have been going on for about three years now).
Here are some samples of the coverage starting with a post-parade KTLA video. I guess The Octopus became news after parade sponsors exerted their influence to make sure it wasn't seen during the broadcast:
Rose Parade Octopus crawls into 2012: Not 'awesome' enough
“Reporters gushed over marching bands, floral arrangements and even a police horse brigade led by LAPD Chief Charlie Beck. But after float No. 43 had passed the finish line, the cameras shut off.”
Cheers and jeers: Can't please everyone
Congratulations to all of those that took part in this classic demonstration of free speech and constructing those memorable “floats” to emphasize the OWS message.
Perusing Brad Friedman's blog (http://www.bradblog.com) the following essay provided “another example of how a dissembling corporate media passes off pro-corporate propaganda as news.”
Hatchet job on Elizabeth Warren:
If there's one thing the Occupation Movement can take full credit for, it is changing the dialog in America and indeed most of the industrialized world. The various occupied encampments were the spark, but now that the movement has made it into the headlines on a regular basis (See Giant Octopus), the political dialog has changed drastically despite the efforts of the mainstream media to avoid the obvious. Maybe part of the reason is that, like most politicians, they prefer to avoid controversy while focusing on the trivial.
Of course, one could make the argument that the corporate media has been negligent in their coverage because the First Amendment was supposed to provide a counter-balance to the potential for corruption within every government framework since the beginning of civilization. Since the founding of the republic the intent of the Founders has been well-documented. Whether you are talking about unsafe working conditions, child labor, segregation or unpopular wars, the social change that followed relied upon a vital press to educate and inform the public.
As we've watched corporate and government interests merge, the relationship between regulators and the regulated has become the antithesis of this crucial dynamic codified in the U.S. Constitution. So it isn't surprising to find that those same interests have collaborated to suppress that knowledge. The alternative media has compensated to some degree, and the Occupation Movement has pushed the discussion along with enough drama to attract some attention, but the MSM and the political leadership have made it clear that they fear the OWS message. Those that allow criminals to loot their customers and constituents have a cozy relationship that is dependent on an uninformed public remaining that way.
Henry Ford was no dummy, and his words are even more poignant today:
“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
Ford was perhaps America's greatest industrialist and proved that innovation is handsomely rewarded in this country. But what sort of innovation do the banks offer? What do they produce? How do they serve the greater good? What we have found is that not only do they serve only themselves, they produce nothing, and their “innovations” are limited to artificial financial instruments like credit swaps, derivatives, falsely valued mortgage securities and so on, that nearly destroyed the global economy.
In a true capitalist model, the banks that caused so much hardship since 2008 would have been forced into bankruptcy just like the Tribune Company. The recession that followed would have likely been slightly more painful had their not been government bailouts and the stimulus spending that followed, but by now those banks would have been broken up, reorganized, their flawed practices corrected, and in so doing would have replaced the bad management and inherent flaws in the structure that caused the 2008 collapse. As it is, we have rewarded failure, institutionalized it in fact, and the business model continues to be a formula for disaster, and an impediment to economic recovery.
Here's a video with the brief explanation:
So as we enter Election Year 2012, the threat of indefinite detention hovering above, threatening the foundation of this allegedly free republic, let us offer thanks to the alternative media vanguard, people like Brad Friedman, Matt Taibbi, Margot Paez, contributing writers to the Huffington Post and the many others who have investigated and reported these things in the true tradition of a free press.
If you take the time to do some research, you will eventually arrive at a simple question, the answer painfully obvious:
Who are the real “anti-capitalists” in this scenario anyway? Who are the real threats to freedom and prosperity? (Clue: Don't look for the answer in the corporate-owned, lapdog media).