But I have begun to question why none of this reached the tradmed in any shape or form. I can possibly understand, but not excuse, the fact that a lot of warnings about sub-Prime that were all over the blogs in the year or two before the wheels came off, but the situation with oil was much more clear cut and there was plenty of evidence that something was badly amiss.
This is a tradition in the USA. I remember seeing almost everything that eventually came out in the Watergate investigations raised in a series of reports from the Washington Post in the summer before the '72 elections. Every one of them sank like a stone, but with no ripples, as the water was moving quickly. And I thought I had calibrated my bullshit detector during the Vietnam War in the 60s! As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
In the era of "he said, she said" reporting that avoids actually reporting unpleasent things like facts unless there is someone in a position of authority to state them ... and repeats quasi-facts so long as there is someone in a position of authority to state them ... its a public fight between people in positions of power.
So long as they were prepared to ignore the story, the press complied, and so long as the story was not covered, people in a position of authority could get away with ignoring the story. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
So long as they were prepared to ignore the story, the press complied, and so long as the story was not covered, people in a position of authority could get away with ignoring the story.
What I found astounding was that the "they" apparently included outspoken critics of Nixon in a U.S. House of Representatives that was very substantially Democratic in composition. I was a highly interested observer of U.S. politics at the time, but certainly not a student of the period. Perhaps "they" correctly assessed the situation and concluded that it would be bad tactically to begin investigations during an election when Republican support would be vital for a sucessful outcome.
I can only hope that the results will be similar this time with regards to justifications for the Iraq War, etc. But I hadn't intended to hijack the thread. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
After all, "He said / she said" reporting does not mean giving fair coverage to what both sides say ... its about ducking responsibility for reporting with the pretence to fair coverage to what "both sides" say.
But Peak Oil is even easier than the Watergate ... where the Democratic House took a watching brief until the story finally caught fire. "Both sides" include one side entirely in the pocket of the fossil fuel lobby and a second side with large numbers in the pockets of the fossil fuel lobby, and with the most immediate response to Peak Oil being to invest in the harvesting of renewable energy resources, which will then compete with fossil fuels in the marketplace, there is every reason to just pretend in public its not happening ...
... even for those oil companies whose strategies clearly include a substantial recognition that it may well be. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
