Is This The End Of CNBC As We Know It?

Tyler Durden's picture

One of the core aspects of mainstream financial media in general, and outlets like CNBC in particular, more so even than their chronic permabullish bias, is the seemingly endless gallery of "experts", "pundits", and other talking heads whose only requirement is wearing a business suit (in some very notable exemptions) who show up on TV, offer trade advice and recommendations - while either pitching their own trading services or hoping to offload their own existing positions  - and if (or rather when) said advice leads to material losses are not heard from again until a certain period of time passes, and those who suffered listening to said "experts" have moved on, at which point the farce repeats itself.

The legendary example of this is none than Jim Cramer declaring loudly that "Bear Stearns is fine, don't be silly" when asked by a viewer in early March 2008 if they should pull their money out of the bank. The stock was trading at $63; six days later JPM "bought" Bear for $2/share to prevent it from liquidating.

 

Why is Cramer still on the air? Because he was never held accountable to any standard of fiduciary responsibility. In short: he acted as an entertainer.

Furthermore, some have speculated that all financial media outlets like CNBC are ultimately nothing but an infomercial sounding board for bullish pundits to pitch their ideas (while at the same time doing the opposite of what they recommend as David Tepper and Jeff Gundlach recently demonstrated), or sell their services while giving outlets like CNBC 5 minutes content slots (for which CNBC pays a few hundred dollars per appearance) which in turn may explain CNBC's collapsing ratings which as we reported a year ago, stopped using Nielsen out of embarrassment.

This all may be coming to an end thanks to the recently issued "fiduciary rule."

Courtesy of Forbes, here is some background on what this rule is:

In April, the Department of Labor issued a fiduciary rule proposing that a “best interest standard” be applied across a broader range of investing advice such that any advisor getting paid to provide personalized investment advice — on things like what assets to buy or whether or not to roll a 401k into an IRA — be considered a fiduciary and have to put their clients’ interests first. Currently, brokers and advisors must only comply with a "suitability standard," which means that they must make recommendations that are suitable to an individual’s investment needs, but they can also consider their own and their firms’ interests.

In the months since the DOL put forth this fiduciary rule, Republicans and financial firms have excoriated the proposal as being bad for America and placing an undue burden on firms’ business. It turns out that putting your clients' interests ahead of your own is practically impossible, and here is, according to Wall Street, why:

"It will be very difficult, if not impossible, for financial professionals and firms to comply with the requirements,” Jackson National Life Insurance president James Sopha wrote in a letter to the DOL in July. In an 83-page letter sent to the DOL the same day, Lincoln CEO Dennis Glass called the fiduciary proposal “immensely burdensome” and “extremely intrusive,” while also noting that “it would be a mistake to assume that fee-based compensation models are always better for retirement savers than commission-based models."

This surreal defense of frontrunning and abusing one's clients went on: Kent Callahan, the president and CEO of Transamerica’s investment and retirement division, told the DOL that “the re-proposal would substantially change our ability to provide the range of retirement services and products from which investors can choose to meet their own specific needs.” And Susan Blount, executive vice president at Prudential, noted that the proposed fiduciary requirements posed a “significant challenge” that could lead to “increased compliance costs” and will “significantly” increase firms’ servicing expenses.

One person who recently called out advisors hypocrisy quite vocally, was Elizabeth Warren, who in a letter sent to the Department of Labor and the Office of Management and Budget called the firms’ claims baloney. Why? Because, in her view, each company made completely contrasting comments about the fiduciary rule in public comments to their investors.

“Publicly traded companies are rarely held accountable for assertions they make when lobbying in Washington, even if these assertions are untrue,” Warren writes. “But when communicating with investors, publicly traded companies are required by law to provide full and accurate information about any material matters that may affect their business models or stock valuations.”

This wasn't Warren's first attempt at supporting the DOL’s proposal for less conflict-laden investment advice. In an October report titled “Villas, Castles, and Vacations: How Perks and Giveaways Create Conflicts of Interest in the Annuity Industry,” Warren blasted firms for giving kickbacks and Caribbean vacations to agents who sell annuities to consumers.

Meanwhile, as the government's intention to pursue the "fiduciary rule" is only picking up steam and supporters, the financial pundits who have finally read the small print are starting to panic because they realize that if the pending regulation passes, they may be locked out of the financial infomercial circuit for good.

Case in point, popular financial radio show host Dave Ramsey, who as Forbes writes, "caused a firestorm on Twitter last week when he weighed in against the "fiduciary rule." Ramsey Tweeted, “this Obama rule will kill the Middle Class and below ability to access personal advice" - actually it will merely kill the ability of a vast majority of charlatans to pretend they can forecast the financial future. A war of Tweets then broke out between opponents of the rule, and supporters, the latter of which includes fee-based investment advisers expected to benefit from the new costs the rule will shower on their broker competitors.

Fittingly, even before Ramsey came out against the rule, one of his critics called for using the rule against Ramsey, supposedly for providing advice said critic deemed harmful to savers. In an October article in LifeHealthPro, an online trade journal for insurance agents and financial advisers, Michael Markey, an insurance agent and owner of Legacy Financial Network, called for Ramsey to “be regulated and to be held accountable” by the government for the opinions he gives to listeners. Markey hailed the Labor Department rule as ushering a new era in which “entertainers like Dave Ramsey can no longer evade the pursuit of regulatory oversight.”

What a novel concept: holding financial "advisors" accountable for their advice. No wonder the industry is panicking. And ironically, nobody should be more panicked than CNBC and its head entertainer, Jim Cramer. As Forbes John Berlau writes, "experts both for and against the rule I have talked to agree its broad reach could extend to financial media personalities who offer tips to individual audience members, a group that includes not just Ramsey but TV hosts like Suze Orman and Jim Cramer, as well as many other broadcasters who opine on business and investment matters. They would be ensnared by the rule’s broad redefinition of a vast swath of financial professionals as “fiduciaries” and its mandate that these “fiduciaries” only serve the “best interest” of IRA and 401(k) holders."

The aftermath of the fiduciary rule is aleady facing a backlash among the financial advisory lobby and its lawyers among whom is Kent Mason, a partner at the law firm Davis & Harman, who said that  “under the proposed regulation, investment advice from a radio host to a caller regarding the caller’s own investment issues would appear to be fiduciary advice if the advice addresses specific investments,” Mason said in an email. It doesn’t matter that Ramsey and other hosts aren’t compensated by listeners, he adds, as the DOL rule explicitly covers those who give investment advice and receive compensation “from any source.” Mason agrees with Markey that the compensation Ramsey receives from radio stations that carry his show and from book sales are enough to define Ramsey as a “fiduciary” under the rule.

To be sure not every financial visionary would be immediately taken off the air: just those who get too specific: the rule containa an exemption for “recommendations made to the general public,” this wouldn’t protect Ramsey and other radio and television personalities if they gave specific answers to callers or audience members, argue both Mason and Markey. Similarly, Mason adds, while the main part of investment seminars would be exempt, “if during the seminar, someone from the audience asks a question about his or her situation and the speaker answers the question with respect to specific investments, that answer would be fiduciary advice.”

It would however, make the CNBC career of such entertainers as Jim Cramer virtually impossible, and would lead to a dramatic overhaul of the way financial outlets like CNBC, Fox Business and 24/7 Bloomberg Terminal infomercials as Bloomberg TV run their business.

Worst of all, though, it would mean that all those frontrunning mutual fund orderflow and fund managers will actually have to go back to doing research and trading instead of going on TV for many hours every day, in some cases as much as 5x a week on 4 different stations. And that is clearly unacceptable.

And while we are confident that the "fuduciary rule" will ultimately be watered down to lead to no real actionable changes, perhaps it will prompt some thinking among the general population who see their own personal advisor on CNBC every other day, and ask: "if my professional finance advisor is in such dire need of marketing that he spends most of his or her waking hours on TV, or writing columns, or tweeting, maybe I should get a different financial advisor."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
wombats's picture

Sue them for malpractice when they eff up, just like doctors.

Can't happen soon enough

-.-'s picture

Junk these fuckers.

VinceFostersGhost's picture

 

 

Joe Kernen will hiss at you....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYgx_dhO63s

 

 

 

....and you probably thought I was kidding.

I wasn't.

J S Bach's picture

CNBC - Can't Name Banking Criminals

CheapBastard's picture

A doctor cuts off the wrong finger, or takes out the wrong appendix and he's washed up for life with his license yanked. Same with a lawyer...gone.

 

Businessmen and brokers [and journalists and politicians] can phuck you up daily and never miss a beat, never lose their license, never be held accountable. How many crooked wall streeters have Eric "Fast & Furious" Holder indicted?

Loretta?

The SEC?

Zero.

 

There's never been a better time them now to be in the financial and/or real estate industries.

Father Thyme's picture

I have never even watched this Cramer dude. From what I read on ZH, it's one of the joys of not having cable or sat.

Whenever I see TV at a place such as the hospital or a lobby, the way they now move the cameras around all the time is nauseating. What's up with that, anyway? It's like the show producer is high on crystal meth or whatnot.  Or produced for an audience on it.

Manthong's picture

Yeah,, I have noticed the squirrely camera shots, too.

It might have something to do with the fact that most everything on video nowadays is seen through an HD cell phone and the  yute-full producers are just trying to be consistent.

..or they just are not smart or professional enough to use a Steadi cam. 

 

Oh.. and

I don’t always spontaneously combust..

But when I do, I do it with Everclear.

JRobby's picture

What in the world will the 27 people that are watching all day do now?

eforce's picture

No more regulations, people should pay the ignorance tax.

Manthong's picture

Fiduciaries on Wall Street might be best viewed not via an LED but a Leupold.

eatthebanksters's picture

May we retroactively apply this rule to Barney Frank?  Actually can it apply to the whole Democratic Party for the subprime crisis?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmhdnZavIIQ

Bokkenrijder's picture

So could this fiduciary rule affect ZH?

Theosebes Goodfellow's picture

~"So could this fiduciary rule affect ZH?"~

Good question. But the answer is "No." If you had Tyler banging a gong and shouting "BUY! BUY! BUY!" or "SELL!, SELL! SELL!", then maybe, yeah, but I think there is too much peanut gallery here for anyone to be allowed a Naivete clause.

After reading about the Overstock story and how The Street and Cramer have been setting up hundreds of businesses for destruction via bad reviews and naked short selling, it is obvious something hasd to be done. But these cats are very well connected. The sad reality is that there are some folks whose ass will not get arrested for financial crimes, (and others!), regardless of what they have done.

Free Jon Corzine! /sarc

BetaGap's picture

So this means there have been bullish signals on ZH? Never have seen something coming close to that.

espirit's picture

Is anyone keeping a list?

It's getting too long for me to keep track of.

We need allies with long memories and knives.

Theosebes Goodfellow's picture

Okay Betagap, you're new here so you get a mulligan. Hanging out on ZH for 23 weeks does not a wise ZHer make, (not that I'm saying such a critter even exists). The first problem with your statement is the terminology. If you are looking for "bullish signals" you're playing in the wrong playpen.

I'm a lot denser than you and it took me a better part of 6 months to even begin to grok some of the finaicial stuff being discussed here. CDOs? What the fuck were those, and more importantly, how do they work? Who buys them? Who sells them? It seems like I was learning new terms every day for months. And the more I learned, the more I became depressed when I realized the extent of the corruption across all markets everywhere.

The rigging is so pervasive and the chances of systemic failure became so clear that I did what many here have done, which is to say I got out of the market completely. Well, that's not completely accurate. Let's just say what little assets I have are now not entirely US Dollar denominated.

But the main point is that what is important is not that you read ZH a lot and look for "bullish signals", but to fundamentally understand what is occurring in the world markets today, corruption and all, and look for opportunities that match your level of risk endurance/aversion.

Read lots of books. I recommend James Rickards, Adam Smith, G Edward Griffin, Peter Schiff, his father Irving, Murray Rothbard, etc. Once you think you know what you are doing, (even if you don't), you can open paper accounts in different trading places and practice. Think you've found a great angle to make money on, test it out first. It gets real painful when your losses are denominated in real dollars/yuan/CHF etc. Lastly, remember, money can be made riding the market down as well as up. Pick one corner of the financial universe and drill down until you know it inside and out. Good luck.

Tall Tom's picture

Yet someone who comments on ZH can if they give specific financial advice.

 

This move is not meant to attack CNBC, Bloomberg, et al.

 

It is a move to stifle INTERNET DISSENT.

 

Maybe ZH will be okay....

 

Bloggers and Vloggers will be the only ones held "accountable".

 

Can you imagine them using this to go after Peter Schiff, David Morgan, Eric King, Jim Sinclair, Bill Holter, and other Gold and Silver Bugs?

 

Government NEVER ACTS in your best interest.

 

They are more morally corrupt than the commercial Television Corporations.

 

Well fuck them.

 

BUY GOLD

BUY SILVER.

Automatic Choke's picture

Squirrely camera shots:   I blame the Sesame Street generation.

If you are over 50-55 and grew up in America, you grew up watching Captain Kangaroo.   Long camera shots with no motion, reading stories and turning pages like your parents did, Normal stuff.

If you are younger, you grew up watching Sesame Street.  Quick camera changes of kids dancing and letters swirling around the screen.  Attention grabbing crap.  Then you graduated to MTV, more of same.  Cramer is just the grownup version.

 

zhandax's picture

Don't forget Romper Room.  They had kids on the set and had to use long shots.  But yes, SS started the video flash bang.

cheeseheader's picture

CNBC (aka NBC) is like GE;  untouchable.  How many oval office dates has GE CEO had in last few (7.5) years???

 

I believe its called crony capitalism...

 

Right Boy Hussein?

ThinkCritically's picture

Even if one accepts the concept that banks were being encouraged to make risky loans - no one was forcing them - the no doc and other risky mortgages were the result of too little regulation. And the collapse would have been contained if not for the CDS's.

Delphi_Addiction's picture

I'm an advisor. I went fee based a long time ago. So presumably I'll be fine, probably significantly better than before. But more importantly, I want to put this into context. I know this is ZH and this may be trolled and I'm fine with that. I understand the demographic here and appreciate it. So flame on. Snarly comments encouraged...

 

This rule is essentially a duplication of the ACA if not in exact structure, definitely in effect. Many of my colleagues will reign or retire. Many investors will move to ETrade to make millions like the baby. Anyone with less than say 100-250k will be on their own. Many firms will go out of business.maybe it will better, maybe it won't. Maybe you hope I meet a nail gun in the near future. I sit for my CFP (CPA for advisors, forces this fiduciary rule upon me voluntarily). I'd like to think I'm one of the good guys, but I suspect most here will disagree... F* Yellen, and all that....

 

But if this goes through, like medical practitioners, there will be about half the amount of financial planners in America within a few years. If you think that's good, I respect that. But ask yourself what MOST non ZHers would do if they controlled their social security dollars. That's where this ends.

Soul Glow's picture

If someone works for an outfit like Bank of America, or JPM, they sell copany stock and bonds.  If someone works for Ed Jones, they sell what the company tells them to sell.  They are salesmen.

If someone is an analyst they are likely to have a bias in terms of the herd mentallity that corporations are what to invest in.   Almost all outfits bash gold.  Hedge funds use options and sell short, but many times even their research is shitty.

All of this keeps people from understanding finance and economics.  People have advisors so they don't have to think, but thinking is exactly what they should be doing.  People should try to see finance for what it is, which is a giant shitshow.

Lore's picture

Exactly. I had to get screwed over 2x before I finally told one criminally-charged FA + two others who were merely grossly incompetent (making thousands of dollars for a few keystrokes, and then only after nagging them for weeks to do it and then finally showing up at their offices and making a scene) to go F themselves and then took control of my own affairs.  Never looked back.  IMO there is perverse value in suffering abuses: chalk it up as Learning Experience. It's a good start to self-education and empowerment.

Most people have no savings, and what's left is being undermined by the central bank, so who will care if there's a contraction in the number of FAs?  Today's financial industry has been in a bubble for years, propped up by easy credit and QE.  As the wealthiest demographic continues to age, and the corruption and breakdown becomes more complete, I would expect net outflows to be the trend for years to come.  There's going to be no need for legions of FAs.  Better might be to pick up a shovel and take up farming, or maybe plumbing. There's always a place for a decent barber...

Say, Cramer, how are those BQI shares coming along? 

It will be a good day when CNBC falls. I shall toast its demise.

Automatic Choke's picture

This was all explained back in the '60s in "The Money Game".  

Anybody with fiduciary responsibility doesn't have to do well, they only have to do what "other prudent professionals" are doing - otherwise their ass is at risk.

Cue sheep, lemmings, etc.

 

 

Excursionist's picture

Let me take a stab at simplifying a run-of-the-mill advisor whose existence is at risk by the proposed legislation (no CFA needed):

Q1:  "How many years until you retire?"

A1:  "Dunno.. guess around 60 would be great, but definitely don't want to work beyond 65."

Q2:  "How would you characterize your risk tolerance?"

A2:  "My risk-what?"

Q3:  "Can you submit a comprehensive list of your current and expected financial obligations?"

A3:  "Sure.. here's an Excel file.  The kids are on their own for college, though.  No way I'm paying that ridiculous bill."

"Based on your holistic profile, I recommend we allocate you 55% equities, 35% fixed income, 5% commodities / precious metals and 5% real estate.  Here at Asset Aggregators, Inc. we have mutual funds and ETFs that can defnitely help you achieve these objectives.  All good?  Great.  See you in a year."

Seems like advisors' value add is equal parts psychiatry whenever clients call up to bitch, rant, etc. about markets' gyrations.  Will it be the end of the world if this type of service goes away?  I'm inclined to say, "No."  Should this type of service continue to exist, since there's obviously a demand for it?  I genuinely don't know...  It's a toss up.

Manthong's picture

You are a pro..

No disrespect intended.. please understand....

none of the pro's knows.. because they do not call the shots.

Theosebes Goodfellow's picture

~"And...it's gone!"~

Precisely. It's all just shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic. How can any genuine FA look at the state of affairs and not tell their clients to run, not walk, and get their fucking money a) out of the banks and b) get them into PM, RE, whatever because the day of the Fucking of the US Dollar cometh and no man can stop it?

Soul Glow's picture

Advisors rarely tell a client to invest in gold.  Most brokerages tell their advoisors to actively stay away from precious meetals.

AgShaman's picture

Reminds me of Suze Orman and Dave Ramsey. Telling people they are crazy for contemplating the ownership of precious metals.

Not that getting out of debt is a bad thing

espirit's picture

Not attacking you, but...

If greed is GOOD, then you have no compassion for your offspring.

Nero_Hedge's picture

"There will be about half the amount of financial planners..."

Would probably happen regardless, no one from my generation has any finances to plan with anyway

piceridu's picture

When my mom and dad walked into their bank many years ago, they were often approached by the bank’s financial planner, or the “wealth" advisor who would tell them they were wasting money just keeping it into a saving account and that he had a better idea for their money. 

Well my parents believed that he had to know better…after all, he was the wealth advisor for goodness sake. 

Well it turned out that he was a good financial planner…but unfortunately, he wasn’t good for my parent's or his customer’s wealth, but for his own and that of his employer.

Little did my parent’s know that he was just putting them into financial products that were rewarding the FP and the bank.  He was selling lemons and churning fees to unsuspecting bank customers without any knowledge or regard for their circumstances. Did he ever call my parents when these financial bombs were losing value and had negative returns? Did he ever tell them to get out and suggest something better that might benefit them?  When finally confronted, he would just tow the company line and would say what almost every broker/salesman in the country would say: “You’re in it for the long term”. Don’t worry it will come back”. 

Virtually all modern TBTF banks are financial engineering centers producing financial service product created for one simple reason: to separate you from your money. 

They unleash endless streams of financial jargon together with intimidating mathematical formulae that quickly deters the overwhelming majority of people from any attempt to understand them. But the complexity of our financial system is just a smoke screen to mask one of most paralyzing social structures humans have ever devised. 

By making investment vehicles so complicated, ambiguous, and back loaded with fees, you are hoodwinked to believe you "need" these “financial saviors” to sort through it for you.

Large banking financial service lobbies roam the halls of Washington DC and claim they work in conjunction with government to sort through the web and fog of regulation and to "protect" us from financial predators. In reality, they are the financial  jackals in conjunction with government cronies creating the fog of rules and regulation to minimize competition and to keep us completely confused and needy.  So what happens? We feel lost and utterly confused and choose from the illusion of choice that has already been made for us. We have to realize, we never had a real choice in the first place. 

My parents didn’t know that their bank was pushing financial products given to them by even bigger banks and that the bigger banks greased the smaller bankers with commissions, yield spread premium, travel junkets, cash prizes and gifts to get them to recommend and unload their Ponzi scheme financial service products to unsuspecting and financially illiterate customers like them. 

Tall Tom's picture

What is his name?

Where does he live?

 

There are a plethora of targets in the San Diego area.

 

Perhaps there will be an independent operator who sets up shop in your locale.

 

And when I stop writing, and really start dying, then I might exact some justice.

 

The scripture, "Vengeance is mine," saieth the LORD, "I will repay", is just so misunderstood.

 

Note that the prophet did NOT write, "Vengeance belongs to the LORD and the LORD will repay".

 

But as long as I write I do not act.

 

And when you have got nothing left to lose...

Lore's picture

Yup. It's the same in Canada.  You should see their eyes light up when you need help with estate probate. You'd think they just found Jesus.

espirit's picture

@ Lore

Tell them to smile when they see the white light.

(oh, I forgot = yer in canukyland)

Ward cleaver's picture

I worked in banking til I was pushed out at 60. Somebody told me about this small retail firm. They told me to get my licenses and I hung out for the day. All they did was advise Berkshire and charge 1%. Pathetic

jaxville's picture

   I knew a currency trader some years back who seemed to do very well.  He was always telling me what gold was going to do using his "system".  When we started betting (my standard gold call bet is a sovereign, he only had quarter oz coins so I had to bend somewhat), it became quite apparent that he knew little about gold and/or his system did not work for it.

  After he lost a few coins he would not bet on gold.  I knew that the market was contrived so I never gave things much thought after that.  Even though he taught Forex trading I never became involved because I wanted to keep my focus on precious metals.

  He passed away suddenly and it soon became apparent that he really didn't have wealth.  He only had a huge amount of debt that provided the illusion of wealth.  Kind of like the banks with all their brass and oak trappings built on a "solid" foundation of debt.  He may have done well at one time but when he started to share his methods...

  There's a line from Genesis; Lamb Lies Down on Broadway that comes to mind....."I'd rather trust a man who doesn't shout what he's found".

Mr. Magoo's picture
Is This The End Of CNBC As We Know It?

Highly unlikely as long as the TPTB keeps printing big bags of cash CNBC is here to stay until the collapse happens

Keyser's picture

Does anyone really believe that the mouthpiece for wall street and the fed will be silenced by a silly fiduciary rule? Those rules will be for the little people... 

swmnguy's picture

No, it's intentional.  It's a fad in TV Production, brought from "Reality TV," which in turn appropriated it from music videos.  In the same way that women's fashion is driven by porn, TV Production style is driven by "Reality TV."  You see the moving-light swoop that was introduced in "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire."  You have the fast and jarring camera cuts, off-angle camera shots, really loud music "stings," it is nauseating and exhausting.  Watching 20 minutes of that (between 8 minutes of commercials) feels like getting beaten up, or pushed down a flight of stairs.

August's picture

 >>>Watching 20 minutes of that (between 8 minutes of commercials) feels like getting beaten up, or pushed down a flight of stairs.

I don't live in The Homeland, OR watch TeeVee, but whenever I visit US family and friends, I am amazed at the "television experience" to which many people apparently devote much of their free time.  In other words, I agree completely with your "physically beaten up" analogy.

If you aren't mentally disturbed to begin with, you will be, and soon;  under the barrage of TeeVee, a prole will predictably snap from time to time, and start killing people.  However, episodic TeeVee-induced insanity is a price worth paying to prevent the population ever actually waking up to their surroundings.

Land of the Lost.

ThroxxOfVron's picture

Like every other industry the media production industry has been devolving to some extent.  HD and the subsequent 4K/UHD/etc. have meant expensive new equipment for everyone involved in production well befor the consumer was pitched a new definition viewing device.

Part of the cost was recouped by dismissing a small army of established directors and designers -and camera operators- in the major media production environments such as NYC.

Now camera is treated with a similar disdain as are generalized stagehands and the corporations and production houses are as likely to hire idiots that cannot frame or hold a shot as not.

I see the decay in all manner of venues from theaters to television studios.

Lighting fixtures with dry-rotted cabling, de-laminated/dissolved reflector materials, and cobbled/rigged parts...

Unlabelled racks and panels of anonymous audio and video feeds cabling that cannot even be tested...

Ancient video feeds up-converted without regard for legibility or color...

 

There is more decaying and hobbled communications and media infrastructure in use than should be; but, misallocation and short-term-ism rule the day.

Oldwood's picture

It would be easy enough to hold these people accountable. Simply stop watching them...turn them off. We are NEVER going to be able to get rid of liars by passing some law. First of all, the biggest liars of them all are WRITING these laws. Secondly, our only real defense against liars is skepticism and doing our own diligence. Everything fucked up about this world falls back on this simple truth. It is WE who buy ALL this shit, the money for nothing financials, the something for nothing cheap imports and especially the promises of protection from those making their living from ALL of it.

How many times do we need to be fucked by "trust me" before we learn to back the fuck off. Instead..it's so much more rewarding to stumble through life being fucked by everyone and then demanding "off with their heads" in retribution.

People are out to fuck you...get over it, learn from it, do better.

Father Thyme's picture

People are out to fuck you

True. 4 billion years of evolution have made us experts at that.

 

"Evolution is a story, and it's not a good story. It's a story of a forced march -- 4 billions years of little machines struggling to trip the other guy, to fuck the other guy over, to eat the other guy's guts. There's organisms all over this planet who's only mission is to dig a hole inside of you and to eat your fucking brains. Don't talk to me how balanced, brilliant, and purposeful, and niche-ey all this crap is; that's not a legitimate niche."

Gladiator War (Graphic Content)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK2a-1K0Sdg