birdog1960 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 the world economic forum gets thousands of pages of print and this (with arguably more powerful attendees) ends up on the local section of the washington post. can't find much about it anywhere else but small indy fringe media. the uk's guardian's done a couple stories but that's not exactly fox or cnn. i searched this forum for comments on bilderberg and most seem to dismiss any mention of it out of hand as tin foil hat conspiracy drivel. but why, at an event just outside dc, with some of the worlds wealthiest and influential bankers, media moguls, politicians and industrialists, is there so little coverage. sure, the proceedings are secret but the meetings themselves aren't. setting aside any talk of conspiracy, what hypotheses do ya'll put forth. and if mitch daniels is the guy, you heard it here first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Stories of those protesters at this event bother me so much. I'm so sick of idiot America protesting over crap they either don't know about or can't possibly know about. Chanting scum at random cars that attend this conference lol. What fools. The Post photographer should take pictures of THEM and post that on the local section under a heading "PPP idiots." Anyway it will be interesting to watch for Mitch Daniels. No doubt about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 3, 2012 Author Share Posted June 3, 2012 (edited) Stories of those protesters at this event bother me so much. I'm so sick of idiot America protesting over crap they either don't know about or can't possibly know about. Chanting scum at random cars that attend this conference lol. What fools. The Post photographer should take pictures of THEM and post that on the local section under a heading "PPP idiots." Anyway it will be interesting to watch for Mitch Daniels. No doubt about that. isn't that the point? they don't or can't know about it because they're not meant to. the fact that so many powerful people congregate in one place is big news. why is it ignored by so much of the media? you'd think a list of "headliners" at bilderberg (which is available but not publicized by major news outlets) would be as interesting to viewers of nbc news as the attendees at michael jackson's funeral or a presidential ball. oh, and the picture in the article is of one of the protestors. Edited June 3, 2012 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 isn't that the point? they don't or can't know about it because they're not meant to. the fact that so many powerful people congregate in one place is big news. why is it ignored by so much of the media? you'd think a list of "headliners" at bilderberg (which is available but not publicized by major news outlets) would be as interesting to viewers of nbc news as the attendees at michael jackson's funeral or a presidential ball. oh, and the picture in the article is of one of the protestors. What will the media cover? There is no real story other than "they meet." Maybe it is interesting for people to know powerful people meet...but it isn't news in the sense of being something new. If we want protection from a potential shadow government going nuts on this is not the way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 4, 2012 Author Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) What will the media cover? There is no real story other than "they meet." Maybe it is interesting for people to know powerful people meet...but it isn't news in the sense of being something new. If we want protection from a potential shadow government going nuts on this is not the way... well, they might cover that mitch daniels is there, for instance. or that john edwards spoke there shortly before being named kerry's running mate. i think that qualifies as news. how bout that tony blair was there in 93 just before being named pm yet denied it to parliament, according to the guardian. if true, that's treason in the uk, at least formerly punishable by death..ya know, the tower and all that. that qualifies as news to me. and shadow govt? probably not. further compelling evidence for the existence of a global informal corporatocracy? maybe. inquiring minds want to know. why don't the big media outlets? Edited June 4, 2012 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 There's an article about it on the front page of NYTimes.com: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/04/us/bilderberg-meeting-provides-conspiracy-theories.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 well, they might cover that mitch daniels is there, for instance. or that john edwards spoke there shortly before being named kerry's running mate. i think that qualifies as news. how bout that tony blair was there in 93 just before being named pm yet denied it to parliament, according to the guardian. if true, that's treason in the uk, at least formerly punishable by death..ya know, the tower and all that. that qualifies as news to me. and shadow govt? probably not. further compelling evidence for the existence of a global informal corporatocracy? maybe. inquiring minds want to know. why don't the big media outlets? Well if it were a true shadow government they would own the news corporations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 4, 2012 Author Share Posted June 4, 2012 Well if it were a true shadow government they would own the news corporations. a "shadow gov't" is sufficient but not necessary. agreement of the major news outlets for whatever reason would suffice. so what are the other possibilities? Not news? sorry, don't buy it. much less important and potentially sensational stories pass for news. i'm sincerely eliciting other explanations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 a "shadow gov't" is sufficient but not necessary. agreement of the major news outlets for whatever reason would suffice. so what are the other possibilities? Not news? sorry, don't buy it. much less important and potentially sensational stories pass for news. i'm sincerely eliciting other explanations. LOL...well nobody here has them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Well if it were a true shadow government they would own the news corporations. They do. Just not the B section of the papers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 4, 2012 Author Share Posted June 4, 2012 LOL...well nobody here has them. clearly...but laughter seems an inappropriate response. remember the strauss-kahn story. i think we can agree that was big news and sold many papers. bilderberg's been going on over 50 years, 120 attendees a year,,,many with big ego's and presumably big libidos. but not a single sex scandal story. not a single loose lipped maid or bellhop. not a single former with attendee whose star is fading, trying to get even through the media. not a single report of a knock down drag out among a couple of type A titans. this implies a remarkable code of silence among the elite, a disinterested or inept media, a collaboration within media to not report or all of the above. history shows that such a story or stories would sell papers and the newspaper industry could certainly use a jolt. just observations without answers but somehow i don't find the possible explanations that i'm able to construct all that funny. maybe you could enlighten me to the humorous possibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) You do realize there are basically 6 corporations that run all news now right? W/ a 120 big shots it should be no wonder if they ran the world as the most eager of conspiracy theorists think that silence is bought and secured. Either way, I'm sure they talk about things "the common folk" may think unsavory but I doubt there is anything malicious or unpredictable. There will always be men of power in civilization...IF these are somehow them I assure you we are still living in a golden age relative the all of human history before us. That said...I have more faith that a significant amount of shady behind the scenes action is (while not completely exposed) assumed and known by people with brains. On a personal level we all have the ability to do what we can/want. That is all you can ask for. Edited June 4, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 clearly...but laughter seems an inappropriate response. remember the strauss-kahn story. i think we can agree that was big news and sold many papers. bilderberg's been going on over 50 years, 120 attendees a year,,,many with big ego's and presumably big libidos. but not a single sex scandal story. not a single loose lipped maid or bellhop. not a single former with attendee whose star is fading, trying to get even through the media. not a single report of a knock down drag out among a couple of type A titans. this implies a remarkable code of silence among the elite, a disinterested or inept media, a collaboration within media to not report or all of the above. history shows that such a story or stories would sell papers and the newspaper industry could certainly use a jolt. just observations without answers but somehow i don't find the possible explanations that i'm able to construct all that funny. maybe you could enlighten me to the humorous possibilities. You're nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 4, 2012 Author Share Posted June 4, 2012 You do realize there are basically 6 corporations that run all news now right? W/ a 120 big shots it should be no wonder if they ran the world as the most eager of conspiracy theorists think that silence is bought and secured. Either way, I'm sure they talk about things "the common folk" may think unsavory but I doubt there is anything malicious or unpredictable. There will always be men of power in civilization...IF these are somehow them I assure you we are still living in a golden age relative the all of human history before us. That said...I have more faith that a significant amount of shady behind the scenes action is (while not completely exposed) assumed and known by people with brains. On a personal level we all have the ability to do what we can/want. That is all you can ask for. so the implication is that it would be easy for only 6 news corporations to collaborate? ok, accepting that premise does not require that the elites at bilderberg run the world, only the media or at least have great influence over it. i think that's a workable hypothesis but still don't find it funny. as to your contention that were living in a golden age, even acceptance of that rather shaky contention doesn't justify acceptance of a media system cotrolled by a few elites. bread and circuses worked thousands of years ago. mybe it's idealistic but i'd hoped we'd progressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 I'd say there's little to report on because it's been going-on for 58 years and the participants don't talk about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) LOL I'm not trying to attack you Bird...I'm just saying...it is what it is whatever it is and I don't feel like those men rule the world b/c of these meetings (I could be wrong but I don't think I am) ... if they rule the world it's for other reasons Edited June 4, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 4, 2012 Author Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) LOL I'm not trying to attack you Bird...I'm just saying...it is what it is whatever it is and I don't feel like those men rule the world b/c of these meetings (I could be wrong but I don't think I am) ... if they rule the world it's for other reasons didn't inerpret it as an attack. but i do note that i keep attempting to limit the disussion to the press and you keep expanding it to world domination,which is a mucn, much harder sell. i'm struggling to find out why most people would find it beyond the realm of possibility that our media is largely controlled. that a free press, in terms of the large inlueential media outlets might be an illusion. the radical right has been railing for decades about the MSM. what if they've got the right book but the wrong storyline? what if the msm is biased but mostly in a way that benefits the corporate elite. well, if that were even partially true, it would significantly erode many peoples faith in a truly representative democracy. it would be machiavellian political philosophy trumping locke and hobbes who we've considered the architects of the american and european sysytems for centuries. i'm not saying the lack of coverage of this event for 58 years proves all this. just that it's one possibility when few others appear to exist. and doc, the media uncovered a sex scandal for the secret service. ya think they might uncover one juicy tidbit in 58 years that the public might be interested in? if they looked under a microscope at 58 years of vacuum salesmen conventions,they'd likely find a mildly sensational, somewhat interesting story or two. the salesmen themselves wouldn't have to talk for the story to get out. Edited June 4, 2012 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) Ya I mean the media sucks we all know that. Just watch Fox news and see the trash stories they push, then turn on MSNBC and see the trash they push. MSNBC will have a bunch of insane spin on stuff. Fox will literally be like "no other news station will cover this but we got your back" LMFAO as Bill O'Rielly attempts to stir up some distraction over a minor story. It's terrible...not that you can't report on whatever even if it's minor but they'll take small things and push it to the front day after day and then say "the liberal media bias is why we're the only ones doing this story"...lol...my God. And a number of other stations besides MSNBC and Fox are bad....but those are clearly the worst offenders and equally so. That said I still watch them sometimes.... Of course. I'm all for talking about the media. I mean it's 2012 and we are more connected and have more technology than ever before yet it is harder (even on the internet it seems) to really just google something and find "good solid reporting" on it as opposed to partisan stuff either way. Everything has a slant. There is not very many place you can go to just watch, think critically, and form an opinion. You always have to watch 2 or more things to see the threads both sides spin and then google like crazy and scroll way down the search list to find non-campaign/propaganda...it's terrible. I mean I am into it, I do work to find it and I still don't find it! I'm a nut and it's still hard! Imagine the normal folk...it's impossible. There was a day where most journalists tried to be neutral in their reporting. And there was a day where Republicans could give an op-ed on a Democratic President that was positive over certain issues (and vis versa). No longer. It's ALL about "the team" and all about "elections." Honestly we may have elections too frequently for modern times...may have to change that.... As for the major news corporations Dan Rather spoke about this on Bill Maher and in his book: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIoI4MRaO0A And just think about when people compare law making in Washington to making sausage...**** that the media should report. And I don't care if it's boring. Show us the sausage factory day to day. And I'm not just talking CSPAN. I mean report on it, behind the scenes stuff as much as possible. FOIA and so on. Show us the boring stuff on real news stations. Let's hold people accountable for God's sake. If Washington is broken it won't fix itself. The people ultimately do have the power...but we have to empowered by information. Edited June 4, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 4, 2012 Author Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) i think it may well be more malevolent than your post suggests (couldn't watch the video at work).. i think it's kabuki theater. there are defined antagonists and protagonists (fox vs msnbc for example) in varying roles depending on your political orientation. and who is it that propagates the liberal msm belief? why, it's the msm of course. just the protaganist or antagonist playing it's assigned role in the play. so what's the end game? it's to shape public opinion in a manner that's conducive to the interests of people like those that attend bilderberg (notice, i didn't limit it to those folks or definitely name all of them). we know how efective advertising of consumer items can be. we can assume this is highly effective as well. there's plenty of evidence for that here on PPP. i find it all very scary and disappointing. hell, even good ole charlie rose attended bilderberg! Edited June 4, 2012 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 LOL I'm not trying to attack you Bird...I'm just saying...it is what it is whatever it is and I don't feel like those men rule the world b/c of these meetings (I could be wrong but I don't think I am) ... if they rule the world it's for other reasons Anyone who's ever been in a government meeting before would know they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts