Corporations and You!

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slayer
Ya, Fox news should be banned from the air. We'd have a lot less problems if no one watched it.


Just as many problems come from MSNBC, CNN, or any other mass produced cable news outlet.




posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 06:48 PM
link   
the problem the government has with the bbc is that blair cant meet with the head financer and negotiate their support, like he did with murdoch and his papers (the times and more importantly, the sun) before his 1997 election victory. if blair attempted this with the heads of the bbc, theyd probably go public with it.

its this lack of control that has governments worrying. blair and his spin doctors repeatedly stated that the bbc was against the war in iraq, but studies have shown that it was more for than against. it was the same with thatcher and the falklands.



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent47

Originally posted by Slayer
Ya, Fox news should be banned from the air. We'd have a lot less problems if no one watched it.


Just as many problems come from MSNBC, CNN, or any other mass produced cable news outlet.


True, True



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bolshevik
the problem the government has with the bbc is that blair cant meet with the head financer and negotiate their support, like he did with murdoch and his papers (the times and more importantly, the sun) before his 1997 election victory. if blair attempted this with the heads of the bbc, theyd probably go public with it.

its this lack of control that has governments worrying. blair and his spin doctors repeatedly stated that the bbc was against the war in iraq, but studies have shown that it was more for than against. it was the same with thatcher and the falklands.




I agree that Blair is more than likely displeased with the BBC but would it suprise you if private broadcasters were putting pressure on Blair to undermine the funding of the BBC? Eliminate the publics voice and all you have left are the companies.

Yet I must say that I dont think that they should retool the way in which the tax is levied because some less afluent Britons are actually being jailed for not being able to pay their 200 dollars for the BBC even if they dont watch it.

[Edited on 27-2-2004 by Agent47]



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agent47
Come on people this is more important than ...

Looks like your thread is catching on



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx
Okay, back.

1. Robots

Indeed, many jobs are becoming automated, but it's msotly here in the western world. it's when it gets to places like CHina that I'm worried.

.

DE


Yeah China's economic potential is huge and I think thats why there is so much attention put on it on places like CNBC. All the capitalists want to know about China's economy, its practically blowing past all the other Western European nations.
Interesting fact though, the fastest growing economy on Earth is in the Former Soviet Satellite States.



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe

Originally posted by Agent47
Come on people this is more important than ...

Looks like your thread is catching on


Why thanks.



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 07:17 PM
link   
murdoch and the heads of his bskyc corporation have been extremely vocal about their dislike for the bbc for a few years, so yes youre probably right that blair is influenced by private companies on this matter.

the license fee is quite contoversial, but generally its accepted, and generally the people who dont pay (like me for example) have got away with it. but i do agree that a standard amount is unfair. when i was in uni 120 seemed like a lot of money and so it must be the same for many low income families. pensioners dont have to pay anymore thanks to blair so i suppose thats a start.



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by bolshevik
murdoch and the heads of his bskyc corporation have been extremely vocal about their dislike for the bbc for a few years, so yes youre probably right that blair is influenced by private companies on this matter.

the license fee is quite contoversial, but generally its accepted, and generally the people who dont pay (like me for example) have got away with it. but i do agree that a standard amount is unfair. when i was in uni 120 seemed like a lot of money and so it must be the same for many low income families. pensioners dont have to pay anymore thanks to blair so i suppose thats a start.




I meant to ask you, how is the level of advertising on the airwaves in the UK, is it as bad as it has become state side.

Also Id like to hear from anyone that can draw a common thread of ownership between MSNBC and FOX or any other rival cable company. It would interesting to see to what degree a mega corporation would be playing the population off on itself through political news outlets.

Two mouths one message, all lies.

[Edited on 27-2-2004 by Agent47]



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Megacorporations exist, whether or not they are recognized or not. Look at Conrad Black's media empire. He controls more than a dozen media outlets on two continents. There's a few other exampes of this, like the oil companies in the US. Simply megacorps are big and getting bigger, as is their range of services. Rogers has gone from a cable company to being probably the largest media corporation in Canada. They swallowed Maclean's-Hunters Publishing, have tapped into video retail, wireless communication, television, adn probably a half dozen other things I don't know about. It's scary, knowing how pervasive certain companies are.

DE



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 08:17 PM
link   
It seems that the CEOs have the real power, not the politicians.



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 08:52 PM
link   
CEOs have the money. The money influences the politicians. In effect, it is the corps that run the government, not us.

DE



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slayer
It seems that the CEOs have the real power, not the politicians.



But its the board members who control the CEO, look at eisner and the mutated beast that Disney is.



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Britney spears owns the world. Plain and simple.



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cutwolf
Britney spears owns the world. Plain and simple.


Yeah I dont need you screwing up my hard earned work trying to enlighten these people about MEGACORPS and the threat they are. A lot more important than Britney Spears and Whos the Best Special Forces group.



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Hey DE, as we go on into the future, hows the Echelon System factor into us losing our privacy. Seeing as the system is a government owned program then will it be bought out or could the corps create their own Echelon system to spy on us with.



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Here are a couple of threads to look at:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.atsnn.com...

I think people should be paying more attention as to whats going on at the Vatican. The Pope has publicly called for a New World Order. I believe corporations have alot to do with it. Someone has to supply Money, and products. Look whats going on with freedom of speech etc... The Patriot Act I and II opened up the door to be able to "control" people "legally" IMO



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickmastertricK

I think people should be paying more attention as to whats going on at the Vatican. The Pope has publicly called for a New World Order. I believe corporations have alot to do with it. Someone has to supply Money, and products. Look whats going on with freedom of speech etc... The Patriot Act I and II opened up the door to be able to "control" people "legally" IMO


I agree the catholic church would love nothin more than to partner up with a huge mega corp but I dont think thats the Popes goal, the man's barely alive and I dont think he would recognize a vast corporation conspiracy building around him.



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Corporations have been invading our privacy for some time now.In fact, they probably tech as much tech as they sell to the government. Spyware does wonders- perhaps a critical component of Echelon is the databases of company, traded for concessions, mutual profit, ect.

DE



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Ok I dont have any link to this story but I just heard it over the radio. President Bush is set to appoint an assistant secretary of commerce to be in charge of strengthining America's manufacturing. Nicknamed the Manufacturing Czar, this unkown individual will aim to strengthen various components of American manufacturing. Sounds fishy to me considering our manufacturing has never been stronger, maybe a possible link to the NWO.





new topics
 
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join