Re: Let's play "Deconstruct the media!" -- America's new subprime shanty-towns

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

________________________________________
From: Andrew C Burnette [acb () acb net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 9:15 AM
To: David Farber
Cc: bmeeks () cox net
Subject: Re: [IP] Let's play "Deconstruct the media!" -- America's new subprime shanty-towns

Brock, Dave,

I too was a bit confused by the story and the title.  It reminded me of
a 1970's era soviet film about the USofA in which they show a typical
town in the breadbasket of America, describe the poverty of capitalism,
homeless, and then in one of the scenes of the homeless is the US
Capital in the background....in Kansas perhaps.

During the three decades inbetween, a particular phenomenon has happened
to the mainstream media. Commoditization. Where once you read the paper
the next morning, or watch a short evening newscast, you now have
virtually hundreds of media outlets, many purporting the same names of
famous times in the past, yet no depth in reporting, only the scratching
of claws trying to hold onto whatever revenue stream is available to
sustain them.

In the 1970's, war photos would often sell for hundreds if not thousands
of dollars, today, one can see those on youtube for free. Production was
once expensive, now parody websites (i.e. the onion) can produce better
quality spoofs of election result leaks than one sees on the nightly
news, obviously, the cost having been reduced to near zero.

In much the same fashion, one could expect many right leaning news
moguls financing the Democratic party, and left leaning Moguls financing
the Republican party for the sole purpose of playing to the ratings over
the next president's term.  What is a pundit without his adversarial
subject.

Best regards,
andy

David Farber wrote:
> ________________________________________
> From: Brock N. Meeks [bmeeks () cox net]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 12:52 AM
> To: David Farber
> Subject: Re: [IP] America's new subprime shanty-towns
>
> Someone below wonders why he "found out about this [story] from the BCC and
> not US media?"  Here's one possible answer:  it's a ginned up report by a
> clueless BBC reporter, trying to make news from nothing.
>
> Let's play "Deconstruct the media!"
>
> First, the title, below it says, "America's new sub-prime shanty-towns" as
> in plural.  But the piece referenced only shows one "shanty-town" and makes
> no reference, whatsoever, to others.  On the YouTube clip it says "Tent
> Cities," and of course, as mentioned, only one "tent city" is shown.
>
> This is incredibly sloppy and just plain lazy journalism.  This is like
> quoting one expert in a story and writing, "expertS claim..."  Bah.
>
> Next, a number is tossed out--ohhhh, we like numbers!--"in the last month
> some 60,000 houses were repossessed."  And then the reporter says, "...now
> they shower in a local church and get by on handouts..."  To this I say,
> "That must be a damn big church to handle 60,000 households wanting to
> shower, just think of the lines!"  Specious, of course.  The reporter makes
> it sound like all 60,000 households are now homeless and living in the tent
> city.  B.S. -- again, incredibly sloppy journalism.
>
> Next, the first woman interviewed talks about how she hopes to get a full
> time job instead of her one-day a week job... she wants to save up to buy a
> car to get to work easier.   Sheesh, were to start?!
>
> First, are we to assume she's a victim of the sub-prime meltdown?  I guess,
> because there's absolutely no clue that she is.  She has a one-day a week
> job, umm.... perhaps her job status is the reason for her homelessness?
> Perhaps she lost a good paying job and couldn't make the mortgage payments,
> could happen, DOES happen, every day.  But falling victim to a LOUSY LABOR
> MARKET has no connection to the sub-prime fiasco.
>
> Second interview, an older couple, now living in an RV, forced from their
> home when they could no longer make the payments.  It's a tragic story, a
> sad story and I'm not making light of ANYONE'S plight here, remember, it's
> the shabby  journalism I'm poking a sharp stick at.
>
> In the same breath that we learn this couple have lost their house, we learn
> why:  the husband fell ill and they couldn't make the payments on the house.
> I'll repeat it, the husband FELL ILL and the mortgage couldn't be paid.
> Again, NOTHING to do with the sub-prime crisis, this is a health related
> tragic story.  And again, it happens hundreds or thousands of times a day.
> And the story there, perhaps, is the lack of affordable health care or...
> ??? But not "this poor couple was forced to live in this RV because of the
> sub-prime crisis."
>
> The last interview is with a guy that says he sold his house "for a lot less
> than I paid for it."  But he didn't take a bath on it, or so it seems,
> because he tells the reporter that after the sale, "I settled all my bills
> and now I'm homeless."  You don't "settle all your bills" if don't have
> equity in the house.
>
> And we can do some arm chair financial planning here and question his
> choices.  Um... pay off my bills and become homeless or take that money,
> rent a miserably small apartment, thus giving me a valid address which is
> critical when applying for a job, for pubic assistance, etc., etc.  And then
> while living in the crappy apartment (but infinitely better than living in a
> tent city) he could pay minimums on his remaining bills with what money he
> has left or try and work out some lower payments with the creditors -- a
> standard procedure now happening more and more.
>
> But no, this guy chooses Option A and goes homeless.  Again, tragic story
> and again, we are left to assume this guy is a victim of the sub-prime mess,
> were as, I'm thinking, doesn't he have a job??  Why would he be homeless if
> he had a job?  Oh... I see, he lost his job, which probably means he
> couldn't pay his mortgage.  Ah, see, a victim of the LABOR MARKET, not the
> sub-prime crisis.
>
> I'm just saying...
>
>
>
> On 3/18/08 1:14 PM, "David Farber" <dave () farber net> wrote:
>  ________________________________________
> > From: Michael Gurstein [gurstein () gmail com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 12:20 PM
> > To: David Farber
> > Subject: FW: [Futurework] America's new subprime shanty-towns
> >
> > Might be of interest to IP...
> >
> > MG
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: futurework-bounces () fesmail uwaterloo ca
> > [mailto:futurework-bounces () fesmail uwaterloo ca] On Behalf Of M.Blackmore
> > Sent: March 18, 2008 7:50 AM
> > To: futurework () fesmail uwaterloo ca
> > Subject: [Futurework] America's new subprime shanty-towns
> >
> >
> > America's new subprime shanty-towns
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnnOOo6tRs8
> >
> > Posted by Cory Doctorow, March 17, 2008 9:07 PM | permalink
> > In this chilling BBC clip, a newsteam ventures to one of LA's new
> > shantytowns made up of people who've lost their homes in the subprime
> > meltdown and now live in tents, improvised shacks or RVs on abandoned land.
> > It's the contemporary Hooverville, and, as the Subliterate Cinephile notes,
> > I wonder why I found out about this from the BBC and not US media. Link (via
> > The Subliterate Cinephile
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com