The Long Version

Retired broadcast journalist. Blogging helps scratch the itch. Recovering exRepublican – Sober and still Conservative.

Mainstream Media Can’t Be This Stupid…Can They?

with 16 comments

Let me begin by stating that I am not a blind critic of the media. I worked in Television News as an Anchor, Reporter and News Director for over a decade and was involved in electronic and broadcast media for nearly 15 years. I loved my profession and my job. I left the industry for a number of reasons one of which included the change I was seeing in how the news was being delivered and what I call the “commercialization” of news.

I had the unpleasant experience of having a general manager of one of the stations I worked for try to kill a revealing and negative story about a local merchant who also happened to be one of the station’s biggest advertisers. After much consternation and debate the story won the day but with a compromise that a particularly damning sound bite not be used on air.

It was then that I realized how much money and politics could effect the news content of the day even at the local level.

It’s been more than 5 years since I left the business and I can only say things have gotten worse not better.  The news is skewed and leaning hard left. Except over at FOX which leans hard right.  Unfortunately this doesn’t help the situation and does not provide balance it simply gives the two sides a place to go for THEIR news.  Not good.

All of that leads into a story I read today from a financial guru and investment adviser named Bob Wiedemer.  Wiedemer appears to be a conservative minded individual but what he says is neither conservative nor liberal.  It’s simply the truth and for some reason our watchdogs of the 4th estate can’t seem to grasp it, or is it something else.  I don’t want to go as far as to imply that facts are intentionally being misreported, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck….

The economic recovery being touted as “under way” by the media is simply a bunch of hot air.  Boloney.  Hogwash.  Bullshnike…  It doesn’t exist and the numbers prove it.  And here they are.

Historical government spending in the United S...

Image via Wikipedia

The “recovery” is made up of only stimulus funds.  It is a result of massive government borrowing and spending.  Here are those numbers.

In 2007, the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) totaled $14 trillion.  In 2010 the GDP totaled $14.6 trillion dollars.  A net increase of $600 billion.  Viewed on its own, $600 billion in three years is not very good, but on the bright side, its a rebound that tracks above inflation, slightly.

Compare that however to the increase in government borrowing. In 2007, the U.S. government borrowed and spent $163 billion.  In 2010 it borrowed and spent almost $1.4 trillion, a net increase of over $1.2 trillion.

The spending binge (on borrowed dollars) is also what’s propping up the stock market i.e. printed money the quantitative easing strategy of government bond buying, the second round of which ended June 30th.  The fact is when the Fed prints new dollars the market responds with an upswing.  When the Fed stops printing dollars it drops.  The stock market recovery is as fake as the economic recovery.  Driven by unsustainable irresponsible government idiocy.  It’s not based on hard-nosed analysis of the economy and its underlying capacity for growth, it’s based on printed money pushing up stock values beyond any true economic recovery.  You want a glimpse of the future of the stock market?  Look at the housing market.

The golden question?  Besides the obvious, why is the media ignoring the real story; how are we going to pay back all the borrowed cash?  The answer: we can’t.  Not even if every dollar earned by every American taxpayer was paid in taxes for the next decade.  The bubble economy is about to pop and when it does inflation, the crash of the dollar, and, heaven forbid, the elimination of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.  None of it good.

But you won’t hear that from those friendly smiling faces on your TV screens.  Nope.  They’re too busy admiring the Emperor’s new clothes.

Information for this blog post was found in the Financial Intelligence Report a monthly financial news letter.  You can subscribe at  This blog does not endorse or represent

16 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Were you fired for lack of critical thinking skills?


    Ben Hoffman

    August 30, 2011 at 11:47 pm

    • Coming from a progressive I take that as a compliment. Way to stick to core tactics and strategy of the progressive liberal, demean and attempt to humiliate but by no means debate the content!



      August 31, 2011 at 3:25 pm

  2. It seems that Ben Hoffman is a left wing extremist and Doug is a right wing extremist. So, I’ll be your neutral judge. Why did you use 2007? Do you not realize that policies and economics carry over? Do you realize the detriment Detroit would have caused to the world? How about American banks? Good job. At this point, you should have realized that the debt accrued was entirely reasonable and would have been enacted regardless of the political party sitting in the oval office, unlike trillions spent chasing daddy’s demons.

    I apologize, but Hoffman is correct. You really lack critical thinking. August 2011? Was that after the Teabaggers caused one month of trading hell playing games with debt? Though it setup a wonderful retrace and entry, it was a prime time for an idiotic article. I see why you’re a blogger.



    August 9, 2012 at 10:53 am

    • Your neutrality comes into question with your assumptions…remember the saying about what happens when you assume? Anyway, you’re entire premise is built on assumptions. You assume the world would have come to an end if “Detroit”, as you put it, had been forced to deal with it’s miserable mismanagement of its industry like every other business owner in America. You assume, like our president, that some businesses are simply too big to fail (another hint at the total lack of business acumen of Mr. Obama). You assume that “critical thinkers” must agree with you and your view of the world therefore anyone who disagrees is not a “CT”.

      I do however appreciate you’re reply because it solidified the fact that there is never a need to assume a liberal can engage in civil discourse without demeaning his or her counterpart or resorting to name calling.

      Well done. On that front you represent well.

      Now, if you want to go beyond assumptions and name calling and provide an argument that can, with reliable and credible sources, counter my simple mathematics based on documented statistical data, I am all ears and more than willing to seriously consider an alternative explanation of the dire straights we are in financially in this country.

      Note: If you reply with “it’s Bush’s fault”, we’re done, and I’ll have to question your critical thinking.



      August 9, 2012 at 6:45 pm

  3. 1. You neglect that the deficit has been rising in large part due to decreased tax revenues. Bush’s final budget year, 2009, had a deficit of $1.4 trillion – the same as in 2010.

    2. You say that the GDP rose by only $600 billion from 2007 to 2010. While true, this omits the important point that there was a recession in this period. Thus the baseline in 2010 was substantially below that of 2007.

    3. The increased government spending is not intended to be sustainable. It is intended to substitute for the decreased private spending during the contraction/ramp up.



    September 18, 2012 at 12:04 pm

  4. There is no truth to what Wiedemer is saying. He’s a scam artist. And you’re a gullible mark, apparently.



    September 30, 2012 at 10:03 am

    • When in disagreement with the message, shoot the messenger.



      October 8, 2012 at 11:34 am

  5. He’s a scam artist. He’s got a video that offers a free copy of his book, but if you click the link to get the copy, it will request your billing information and subscribe you to three magazines. The subscriptions are pricey and difficult to cancel. I didn’t fall for it because I do my research first (why I’m on this page) but whether or not his economics are correct, he IS a scam artist who is making millions by peddling fear.



    October 28, 2012 at 12:47 am

    • So if the guy is trying to sell his book he’s a scam artist? You’re welcome to your opinion of course, but Robert Wiedemer has been at the forefront of economic prognostication for a long time. He’s right more than he’s wrong and that’s why so many publications seek his advice.



      October 29, 2012 at 5:15 pm

      • Here we are in 2015 and Wiedmer’s predictions were wrong, over and over again. Unemployment is way down, now below 6%, the U.S. economy has been growing nicely for many quarters and the Fed and IMF are predicting U.S. growth of over 3.5% this year! Sure things could be better, but this is no where near a “meltdown.” However, if you predict something truly scary and keep revising that scary prediction every year for decades, eventually something a slight bit scary will occur. Just take a look at where the dinosaurs are at today. While Weidemer was suckering hordes of people to buy his book and subscribe to pricey magazines, we’re technologically on-track according to Moore’s Law with compute power doubling every 18 months. We now have robotic self-driving cars, solar and wind power that’s cheaper than from carbon-based fuels, smart phones that are way faster than desktops were just five years ago, and we even landed a probe on a fast moving asteroid. The question shouldn’t be “when will we crash” but instead, “where are the hot new opportunities for investment?”


        John Zapp

        January 9, 2015 at 4:02 pm

        • What is “Real Unemployment”. If you’re looking only at the numbers provided to the media by Dept. of Labor you haven’t a clue what the true unemployment is in this country. Stat’s can say anything you want them to. The economy is seeing a bump but it’s due to lower fuel costs mainly. I appreciate your optimism, but I think you also wear some blinders.



          January 10, 2015 at 11:49 am

  6. I’m just upset you misspelled bologna.



    February 21, 2013 at 8:35 am

    • While I appreciate your concern and always try to maintain good grammar in my posts, the spelling of bologna as baloney is quite appropriate and grammatically correct.

      ba·lo·ney [buh-loh-nee]
      1. Slang. foolishness; nonsense.
      2. Informal. bologna.
      3. Slang. nonsense.
      Also, boloney.

      Thanks for checking out the blog and any future grammar finds are welcome.



      February 21, 2013 at 12:22 pm

      • Look up the difference between “you’re” and “your” while you’re at it . . .


        Tom Arthur

        March 19, 2013 at 11:11 am

        • Thank you Tom. What would we do without the grammar patrol? By the way that is one of the most common spelling errors in the English language. I’d bet you’ve even made it yourself a time or two. Now, can you show me where I did?



          March 29, 2013 at 9:49 am

  7. The truth may very well be somewhere in the middle. True, that public deficit spending (including indulging in Mr. Bernanke’s “moral hazard”) saved the economy, and made up for private investment; also true, this is unsustainable in the long run. It may not be as bad as Mr. Wiedemer’s “sky is falling,” nor would it be Mr. Greenspan’s “irrational exuberance” run amok. IMHO.



    March 26, 2013 at 5:28 pm

Leave a Reply to Doug Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: