Dear Glenn, after watching Secretary Paulson yesterday on FOX respond to questions about the impact of the credit problem on ordinary Americans with nothing but references to the high quality of American Markets, ad nauseam, it was abundantly clear to me (again) that the Administration and their supporters (read "Power Elite") do not care about ordinary people and look upon them as part of their "capital." Like cattle they but contribute to their wealth; and the pain and suffering of individual persons is only of importance when it reaches a level sufficient to impact their comfort. They have no sympathy and no understanding as to compassion and the manner in which one's own actions come back to one.

So, I believe that our Administration and it's supporters (which includes the corporate media to which you refer in this article) no longer see themselves as participating in this Republic as a whole, but rather have effectively isolated themselves into an elite class. All their efforts, all their discussion, caters to the viewpoint and need of this elite class. I believe that this has even been encoded in our laws and policy through the doctrines of the Patriot Act, Executive out-sourcing of government operations, and the executive branch power-centralization, as evidenced by its business-friendly policies towards environmentalism and drug, food and water safety, its strange behavior through the FCC by permitting virtual monopolies, and the fact that the Constitutional government has now been subverted to the Unitary Executive.

I don't know if journalists such as you mention in this and other articles, or individuals like Secretary Paulson are aware consciously that they adhere to this elite class and are therefore swathed in its narrow viewpoint. Sometimes, it seems as though they are merely so surrounded and engulfed by it that they are aware of nothing else. Surely, many politicians, because of wealth and influence, are not entirely capable of appreciating the conditions which impact those who are not wealthy and connected. But are they truly conscious of this? Maybe intellectually some are aware of it, but because it doesn't directly impact most of them, it receives no effective attention. I suspect the same applies to many journalists, and I've no doubt that the current corporate media environment at some level purposely cultivates this kind of aloofness and neglect of fundamental principle.

A month or two ago, I posted a comment with an annotated list of Time's advertisers from the issue with Joe Klein's egregious column.

I'll try to find it, and maybe do the same thing with the current issue.

The sound of money disappearing is the only thing that Corps like Time can hear anymore, but that probably does not include the whispers of canceled subscriptions.

I think one has to write to the advertisers, and convince others to do the same. That technique has had results.

"Reading" it and expected to get real, hard news is like watching CNN and expecting to get the same. It's not coincidental that they're owned by the same company, and thus share the same fluffy and uncritical "news" philosophy. Time, like CNN, is for people who want to think of themselves as being up on the news, but who aren't willing to devote the time and brainpower to actually do so. It's like living on junk food and taking a couple of vitamin pills and thinking that this makes it all ok.

This isn't really about cowardly "journalists" fearful of being critical of a disasterous regime, lest they be shut out of having access to it. Rather, this is about the willfully and deliberately cynical decision, that really dates back to the founding of this newsie rag, to present a cleaned-up and distorted version of the news that its management and owners believe will both attract the widest readership and reinforce their corporate interests and ideological leanings. It's a form of corporate propaganda presented as journalism, no different really from those deceptive brand-reinforcing ads by companies like ADM, Cargill and BP, that are meant to make people feel good about these notoriously dishonest and destructive companies.

Reading Time credulously is like reading a pre-collapse Enron annual report and buying its rosy view of its financial situation. Sadly, many people are probably doing precisely this, and having meaningless water cooler conversations that are based on distorted information and outright lies, and have no idea that they might as well be having serious conversations about Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. The danger of publications like Time isn't that it's dishonest, but that many if not most of its readers have no idea that it's dishonest. This is how outright lies are transformed into conventional wisdom in our society. Media outlets like Time and CNN are an integral part of this process. And it is both knowing and intentional.

But, of course, the American people aren't interested in any of that. Time told me so.

Thanks. Although to be fair, I have no qualms about stealing other peoples good lines and ideas and that post was no exception.

Who is greedier, the person that wants to keep more of what he earns, or the person that covets those earnings for himself?-- shooter242

Well sounds to me like you just described capitalism in your question. Greed does drive capitalism and you could say the guy that covets others earnings as well as keeping more for themselves is a capitalist. Microsoft went after their competitors to gain their wealth, corporate takeovers accomplish the same thing. Baseball players want to take more of owners earnings and owners want to take more of players earnings as their own. THere are many many examples of capitalism that fall within your question.

However, the Carlisle group who owns large shares of Bear Sterns and is a significant beneficiary of the federal bailout, is more like the imaginary welfare queen I imagine you had in mind with your statement.

Are Time reporters and editors just blissfully ignorant of these incidents or do they conceal them because they negate their clean, crisp storyline?

They ignore them because they do not support the CORPORATE storyline that regulations, deficits, checks, and balances don't matter anymore in this brave new world of unitary executives and the forever war empire.