Maybe you should read USA Today and other news agencies that have been reporting on this subject for many months, this from Feburary.

*not_secure_link*www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-26-oil-taxes_N.htm

 

Usually news media report when important legislation is actually being debated by congress giving citizens time to contact their representatives and express their concerns or desires. This often even results and mass mailings, phone calls, and actual campaigns.

I did not see any news stories in the mainstream press reporting that this legislation was actually being considered by the senate or more importantly that this legislation was being blocked by a republican filibuster until after it was defeated. Now I could have missed that and if I did please post it. But until you do I will stand by my statement that this crucial piece of legislation was not properly reported on by the mainstream press.

 

I see the problem.

You need to pay attention to things around you. The story of the congress, tax law repeals on oil companies and the Bush veto threat have been in ALL the mainstream media for months. The filibuster threat has likewise been reported. The story that the votes needed to end the action have not been forcoming, is the only current news here.

But you make it sound like earthshattering news of something that was handled covertly. Only in your mind.

 

It is easy to be demagogic about an issue like this. Liberals can blame the oil companies. Conservatives can blame environmental regulations and the tax on gasoline.

The truth is that millions of more people throughout the world are buying cars and consuming gasoline. Less petroleum remains to be drilled, and it is less accessable, so it will cost more to drill it.

We need to acknowledge that America's dependence on automobile transportation is a national problem. We need to develop alternatives to automobile transportation. These include puplic transportation, bicycle trails, and pedestrian means of access. We also need to move back to cities. In a city it is easier to get along without a car.

"America's love affair with the automobile" needs to come to an end.

 

Sources please tenguy. All I can say is I did not see where this legislation was being debated or filibustered by the republicans in the several news sources I usually watch and read. You're saying I should have, implying that you did know of it through mainstream media sources, and if that is true it should be no great effort for you to site those sources.

And while you're at it please show me where I categorized this as earth shattering news of something that was handled covertly. To the best of my knowledge and belief I only questioned why, since oil prices and the price of gasoline is so crucial right now there wasn't more reporting on this legislation. Because if there was and I was aware of the legislation I could have contacted my senators and expressed by support for it.

 

I agree and support a lot of what you are saying here, but I have a couple of questions. If we started today on building mass transportation how long would it take for them to be in operation?

What is your solution for farmers, truckers, airlines, rural America, and people like myself that have to drive some 40 miles a day because that's where the work is performed and there are no living quarters available for 20 miles?

 

Asked and answered, because YOU didn't read or see the news reporting of the subject does not automaticly mean that it was not. Since I, an absolute imbecile in your eyes, saw it and have been following it for months, must mean that you are the one with his head in the sand.

 

I asked you for sources tenguy, not a recap of our discussion thus far. I am asking specifically for the sources that say this legislation was actually being debated and blocked by a Republican filibuster. Congress has numerous, perhaps uncountable issues that might come up, but then again they might not.

Like I said. If I was aware that this legislation was actually on the floor of the senate and being blocked by a Republican filibuster, I could have and would have contacted my senators and told them that I as a voter supported the legislation and opposed their filibuster. All I'm saying is that I did not see where that was reported in the mainstream media I usually watch and read, and that seems very strange to me given how important the price of oil and gasoline is to the American Public.

I already admitted I could have missed it, so now its up to you to show me where the actual legislation and filibuster was reported before it the legislation was in essence killed by the filibuster.

 

Gosh, not only do you not read the news, you don't read my posts.

Three times I posted a link to one article from 4 months ago, in US Today no less and you act like it never existed. Why should I go to the bother to research and post links to something so transparent. This is your tactic not mine.

 

As I have previously stated many times now I do read and watch the news and actually believe I read your posts better than you do.

The article you posted as you readily admit was from four months ago. What I have consistently said is that with an issue as crucial as the price of oil and gasoline is to the American public it looks to me like this legislation would have been reported by the main stream presses when it actually came up for debate and especially when this legislation was being blocked by the republicans. I did not see any mainstream media reports on that and if you did please post them. Otherwise I can only stand by what I have said so far.

 

Back to square one. The attempt by congress to repeal the business tax incentives has been widely reported, thus my posted link.

The fact that Bush as promised to veto such a bill has also been widely reported and again it was in my posted link.

The fact that congress could not override a veto, based on the congressional makeup, was also reported, againin my link.

The "windfall" profit tax provision is a recent development and one which provoked the threatened filibuster, this too has been reported in the recent news articles (one being the one that ou linked).

Now how does this constitute manipulation of the media??

 

I am more than ware of what is in your link. I was also aware of everything you just said. What I was not aware of is that this legislation had actually come up for debate on the floor of the senate. To me that should have been news very worthy of reporting. Not mentioned as a possibility four months ago and then not reported when it was actually a reality.

The very essence of news is to report things that are happening now. If there is a continuing issue, especially one critical to the news readers and watchers of the news it is absolutely essential that new developments are reported. Its the new developments that actually make it news.

And that's why I saw this lack of reporting as extremely odd, because it was a crucial issue to the American public and there were new developments to report. But as far as I could tell the mainstream media failed to inform about the current actions and latest developments and instead reported only after the fact which negated my opportunity to voice my support and objections until it was too late. That was why I posted the article and said I found it strange because again the part of the very function of news is to inform people. In this instance I would compare it to doing a story about the hurricane season approaching and then another story after the hurricane had come and gone, but no story that a hurricane was actually going to hit.

And I never said the news media was being manipulated, although I believe I have demonstrated many examples where they are, What I said is this is at best a glaring example of the US mainstream media not doing their job and at worst a case of the mainstream media manipulating the news.

 

Unless I am sadly mistaken, I believe the second part of the bill IS new, the reporting on it is current. What is not new is the effort of congress to repeal the tax incentives for businesses. However, I believe that the issue that Bush stated was that the repeal applied to a segment of business and that he therefore would veto it.

Again, I'm sorry but I just don't see where this was a covert operation.

 

I think you may be mistaken on what is supposed to be the media's primary function which is to keep them informed on current issues. If they are following a current issue, especially one as critical as the price of oil and gasoline, which they do numerous stories on almost daily, in this instance they failed to inform the public of the two latest developments. One being that Windfall profits taxes had been added to the issue and two that the issue was actually being debated in the senate and blocked by a republican filibuster. Reporting that after the fact and when it was too late for the public to have input is failing to live up to their stated mission and responsibility to keep the public informed. As I said, reporting on a hurricane after hit hit instead of warning people that it was coming so they could take action.

And I most certainly never even implied that it was a covert operation. What I said was:

And I think that it must be one of those possibilities is fairly obvious.

 

A couple of weeks ago I was kidding with Kimi about using kudzu as fuel. Well...on the news last week, they featured two men from Tennessee who are going to produce ethanol from KUDZU!! They said they should be up and running by 2009. I think their business is called Agro Fuel Industries.

 

Again, if something is reported on, as it is happening, how is that failing to report on a timely basis? When I looked into this question I found hundreds of hits on the subject, from CNN/Time to Rueters to Yahoo.

Your comment that the filibuster action was covered up by the Republicans is in itself a accusation of a covert act.

 

I'm glad you reminded me about this because I also saw mention of using Kudzu as a source for biofuels and remembered you bringing that up. I wonder if more people don't read this forum than we ever would have guessed.

In this instance two ways at least by the standards of journalism. First, because as I have said one of the presses functions is to inform people of upcoming events so people can take action if they are affected or so inclined. Funerals might serve as example the press reports when they are coming up so people can attend, not after they've already taken place and the person is already in the ground. That is a traditional function of the press and is the reason almost all major news sources actually have reporters permanently stationed in Washington DC. That's also why there is such a thing as what is called the Washington Press Corps.

And secondly in this instance, even though it is standard to inform the public of what is coming up in congress and what bills are actually before the house and senate, in this case they not only failed to do that as far as I can tell, they didn't even inform when it was actually happening. As far as my news sources go the first I heard about it was after the Republican's filibuster was successful, and the legislation was essentially dead. That's like reporting on a funeral after it has already taken place.

Then by all means please post or link the ones that said the legislation was coming up for debate or even the ones that say it was up for debate but was being blocked by a Republican filibuster. You just named three of my primary news sources (with the exception of Time) and like I said I didn't see it. Like I also said I could have missed it so please be kind enough to show me where I did.

I don't believe I ever said any such thing and if I did you can also be kind enough to post or link where I did, because one of us is mistaken on that point.

 

All I'm saying is that it is normally standard procedure for the press to report on issues, especially crucial ones, on almost a daily basis. They do that normally with issues before congress and they have been reporting on the high cost of oil and gasoline and what negative effects that has on us. In this instance even though the issue is crucial and reporting on what is going to happen and is happening in congress is standard and routine it did not happen in this instance.

Reporting on things that are going to happen is one of the most important functions the press has. When, where, and what will be discussed at upcoming public meetings are in fact in most states required by law to be published. So papers report on up coming meetings as well as publish public notices. They also report when concerts, weddings, special programs and funerals are going to be held. Reporting on these things are considered by many to be their most valuable function. In this case it didn't happen.

No that is not what I was saying at all. I used the example of the funeral to illustrate that it would not do any good for the people that are interested to report on a funeral after it was over. If people want to attend they need to know when the funeral is scheduled to be held.

The press provides the same function when it comes to informing the citizens about their government. It is standard procedure to report what is on the agenda for a public meeting. This is standard and routine yet in this instance they did not report on this piece of legislation before it was being discussed, giving citizens a chance to voice their opinion on it, and didn't report on it while it was being blocked by the Republicans, which would have been another chance for public input. Apparently as far as I could tell they only reported on it when it was too late for citizens to voice their support, concerns or objections. That is not standard operating procedure as far as I know.

 

I know...I probably could've been rich!!! I still have 2 acres of the stuff...maybe they'll buy it!!