Something that really irritates me are when media outlets run a story that successfully plants the idea of a story in people’s heads while withholding all of the information necessary to determine whether the idea is valid or not.
I found the perfect example today. I got the story from Consumerist, who got it from Bloomberg. The Bloomberg headline is “AT&T Gave $963K to Lawmakers for T-Mobile.” The headline clearly suggests that AT&T bribed members of congress in order to approve its merger with T-Mobile. The evidence for this claim; however, is severely lacking. The article states that 116 of the 117 signers of a letter defending AT&T received $963,275 from “AT&T employees” in campaign contributions. Sounds like a company buying Congressional influence, doesn’t it? I guess so, because upwards of 3/4th of the comments on Consumerist were something to the effect of “SEE! I KNEW IT! CONGRESS HAS BEEN PURCHASED BY GIANT EVIL FACELESS CORPORATIONS.”
That may very well be true, but the incredibly limited amount of facts in this article are wholly insufficient to support such a conclusion. A little bit of critical thinking should immediately yield the following questions:
1. What exactly do they mean by “AT&T employees?” Does this vague definition include a minimum-wage employee donating $10 to a local campaign because they like the candidate’s stance on capital punishment? Can that really be considered a bribe “for T-Mobile”?
2. The total contribution seems like a lot of money. Almost a million dollars! But with some basic math, it averages out to about $8,300 per person. I’m no expert on campaign finance, but I’m guessing that’s basically a drop in the bucket to most campaigns. I’d venture that if eight thousand dollars is enough to “own” a Congressman, then every single Congressman is “owned” by about 100 different people, corporations, and/or pressure groups.
3. The main objections to the AT&T merger come from its main competitors, Verizon and Sprint. Who knew, they’re sticking up for us little guys! What big hearts they have! I wonder, of the Congressman who oppose the merger, how many of them received contributions from those companies, and for how much money? That information would be useful to know, and is not included.
4. Of the remaining members of Congress, the ones who are either neutral or opposed to the merger, how many of them also received contributions from AT&T, and for how much? It seems relatively common practice these days for large corporations to make donations to all of the contenders. That information would be useful to know, and is not included.
5. Of the 116 who received contributions from AT&T, how many have a strong and consistent record of supporting the right of private corporations to manage acquisitions however they see fit in accordance with free market principles? Surely a Congressman with a record of consistently supporting corporations right to merge cannot seriously be assumed to only be supporting this merger because of an 8k campaign contribution. He most likely would have supported it anyway.
None of this information is included, because it would most likely render the implied point of the article (AT&T is bribing Congress to do its nefarious bidding) obviously false. Any one of those five issues is enough to prove that this is a non-story. Instead, the media pushes an obviously biased point of view, and successfully convinces people of something despite an astounding lack of context, clarity, and useful information. Shame on Bloomberg for shoddy reporting, and shame on Consumerist for spreading it around.
I’d venture that if eight thousand dollars is enough to “own” a Congressman, then every single Congressman is “owned” by about 100 different people, corporations, and/or pressure groups.
So, in this example, what happens if a Congressman has been given eight thousand dollars by AT&T AND Verizon? Does he explode when forced to take sides, like a robot in a debate with Captain Kirk?
-- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized http://img.imgcake.com/gadsdenflaggifda.gif
It becomes analogous to a lie by intentionally withholding the proper context and relevant information which may lead people to make a conclusion that is not the conclusion they want people to make.
Well, that's why I said analogous. It is technically not a lie, but it is morally equivalent to lying. The same way piracy is not technically stealing, but is morally equivalent to stealing.
-- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized http://img.imgcake.com/gadsdenflaggifda.gif
1 who gave me the most money and who can I count on for more money in the future 2 how likely am I to get caught 3 if I'm caught how much public attention will I get 4 are there any other pressure groups in the mix? are the feminists or the black people going to throw a fit if I choose AT&T?
No because the parentheses say "Without lying to you" his point is that what they're saying isn't FALSE, but it implies something that may well be false
I didn't read the whole thing, but does it ever explain how artists are supposed to make money if record labels are abandoned and intellectual property is freely distributed?
It hasn't yet, and if it never does, then this essay says nothing.
does it ever explain how artists are supposed to make money if record labels are abandoned and intellectual property is freely distributed?
I think artists get more money from concerts than album sales, so... that. Whether or not that's enough money to make a living is a different issue, though.
I didn't read the whole thing, but does it ever explain how artists are supposed to make money if record labels are abandoned and intellectual property is freely distributed?
It hasn't yet, and if it never does, then this essay says nothing.
it does quite early, and anyone with even a passing interest in art history is already aware. artist as a profession has been around longer than copyright law.
artist as a profession has been around longer than copyright law.
We're already incredibly off-topic here, but I'll indulge. I know nothing about art history, but I was always under the impression that during the middle ages (and earlier) artists as a profession were considered quite lower-class, and that it was in no way considered an honorable or worthy profession. Perhaps it's related.
-- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized http://img.imgcake.com/gadsdenflaggifda.gif
$8000 isn't really a paltry sum for a single vote.
If you were asked to vote to allow Gay Marriage in your state, and you were offered $8000 would say no? And remember -- if they can't get you to do it, there's always someone else they could give that money to instead.
Or if not then, what about another issues your convictions weren't as strong on?
--
It's more like if you don't have to wait in line at Arby's because some dude stopped by and kidnapped all of the other customers. - MoogleKupo141
AT&T giving money to senators who would vote how they want them to vote without the $8000 makes a lot of sense -- after all, they WANT to keep people in power that would vote the way they want them to.
--
It's more like if you don't have to wait in line at Arby's because some dude stopped by and kidnapped all of the other customers. - MoogleKupo141
If you were asked to vote to allow Gay Marriage in your state, and you were offered $8000 would say no?
I would if ten other people were offering me $8000 to vote against it.
The point is, without knowledge of what OTHER donations are being made, knowledge of this donation is irrelevant. Despite what the leftists would have you believe, this merger is not a battle between a big evil corporation and all of us consumers. It's a battle between one big evil corporation and two other big evil corporations.
-- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized http://img.imgcake.com/gadsdenflaggifda.gif