(no subject)
Aug. 26th, 2005 10:17 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ellyssianC'mon everybody, sing along: "We don't need no information..."
Thanks to a post by![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
phantom_wolfboy, I've learned something...
By announcing, last week, that it will simply ignore the unanimous ruling by the North American Free Trade Agreement's court of last resort (the Extraordinary Challenge Committee), which instructs it to drop its unfair and illegal tariffs on imports of Canadian softwood lumber, the U.S. government has taken a page out of Tony Soprano's playbook: "So, you Canucks want your five billion bucks back. Well, Fuggetaboutit! Waddaya gonna do, anyhow? Cry to your mother?" - from U.S. to Canada: Who's your daddy now? on canadaeast.com
I've also learned that, as of the time I checked it, a Google on "softwood" and "nafta" leads only to sources north o' the border (EDIT: first page only, later pages had a handful of links - 1 or 2 per page maximum - from local border city papers).
This would be why I don't peruse the accepted regular news outlets - I learn more from posts from friends in the UK and Canada and from mentions on message boards with an international participation than I ever could if I sat down and watched your standard fare news and read your standard fare paper. There's definitely been a trend lately that things I judge as critical are the things the US media decides should get a one-line mention - if at all - during their more entertaining three-ring media circus.
Thanks to a post by
phantom_wolfboy, I've learned something...By announcing, last week, that it will simply ignore the unanimous ruling by the North American Free Trade Agreement's court of last resort (the Extraordinary Challenge Committee), which instructs it to drop its unfair and illegal tariffs on imports of Canadian softwood lumber, the U.S. government has taken a page out of Tony Soprano's playbook: "So, you Canucks want your five billion bucks back. Well, Fuggetaboutit! Waddaya gonna do, anyhow? Cry to your mother?" - from U.S. to Canada: Who's your daddy now? on canadaeast.com
I've also learned that, as of the time I checked it, a Google on "softwood" and "nafta" leads only to sources north o' the border (EDIT: first page only, later pages had a handful of links - 1 or 2 per page maximum - from local border city papers).
This would be why I don't peruse the accepted regular news outlets - I learn more from posts from friends in the UK and Canada and from mentions on message boards with an international participation than I ever could if I sat down and watched your standard fare news and read your standard fare paper. There's definitely been a trend lately that things I judge as critical are the things the US media decides should get a one-line mention - if at all - during their more entertaining three-ring media circus.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-26 08:28 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-26 09:05 am (UTC)1 change
Date: 2005-08-26 11:13 am (UTC)You aren't surprised, are you? It' been the law of the land since Nixon.
Before, both Republicans and Democrats, however scuzzy personally, were more careful with the country's reputation and honor. Also, I think the citizenry
was more vocal and less afraid to speak up until Nixon.
Re: 1 change
Date: 2005-08-26 11:58 am (UTC)Doesn't quite fit - it's to the tune of Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall"
(remainder of the comment...)
It definitely seems to be on a downward spiral, you may have noticed it with Nixon, I notice it with the Second Shrub from the Right.
I've definitely noticed lower standards with the media over the last 10-20 years, and (as far as I knew) they always pre-treated the information, but ever since the Clarence Thomas hearings, they've been building circuses around certain subjects, and have been spending more time on these things and less on what is arguably more important news.
It's not that Cindy Shepherd and other News du Jour shouldn't be reported, but when you get talking heads repeating the same soundbytes over and over, they're spending too much time on it and need to increase their coverage just a wee bit.
Re: 1 change
Date: 2005-08-26 12:05 pm (UTC)They did, however, find out about a lawsuit involving Axl Rose and his former band, Guns n' Roses, which was at the top of the headlines on both sides of the pond.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-26 12:52 pm (UTC)