Stossel rides again!

[alexpgp]

ABC's John Stossel hit the nail on the head with last night's segment on 20/20. Excerpts:

Congress and the Bush administration agreed on a plan to help the airline industry: $15 billion in grants and loans. Their success inspired others to ask for your money, too.

* * *

Barry Sternlicht, CEO of a chain of Starwood Hotels, for example, was soon meeting with government officials to discuss federal aid for his business.

Then insurance companies wanted taxpayer help and government guarantees against future terrorist claims. (Excuse me: Aren't insurance companies in the emergency business?)

Now Amtrak is claiming the terrorist attack means it should get more of your money because many who used to fly are taking the train. For years Amtrak complained it didn't have enough passengers. Now that there are more riders, the company says it needs even bigger subsidies.

The list of industries with their hands out keeps getting longer. The skydiving business says it deserves relief. So do the businesses that have concessions at airports and those that cater airline food.

Even farmers, who have been getting your money for years, now say they should get more because of "national security."

* * *

Wait a second — let's get real! The reason America is strong and has airplanes and computers and high-tech weapons is not because of government handouts. It's because of the entrepreneurial spirit. Fortunately, that spirit is still alive — even near Ground Zero in New York.

For example, look what Darrell McCray, a clothing store owner, has done. Customers couldn't get into store after the attack. The whole area around his store was shut down. Now that it's open, customers have been slow to return.

"It's not easy right now with no customers coming in," says McCray, who has had to let two of his seven employees go. But McCray didn't hire the lobbyists who got the airlines $5 billion. He took out a second mortgage on his house to get the money to keep his business going.

* * *

Other businesses are adapting, too, rather than expecting handouts.

"You've really got to hustle. You really get out there and you really got to push it more than an average person," says Anthony Tilelli, a New York City taxi driver who is working an extra three hours a day to get by. "It'll take time, but New York will always come back, one way or another."

It will, thanks to the hard work of people — not because of gifts from Congress.

Cheers...

Comments

[marxis.livejournal.com]

It maybe my bias again, but Stossel speaks the Truth in reporting...

Stossel bias

[blorky.livejournal.com]

...this time. Usually Stossel is whoring for Big Chemical or Big Agribusiness.

http://www.healthwellexchange.com/nfm-online/nfm_backs/Nov_00/stossel.cfm

Re: Stossel bias

[alexpgp.livejournal.com]

Funny, that's not what the link suggests:

To be fair to Stossel, these connected dots do not prove he is for sale. It would be too easy to demonize him as an unprincipled hack for business interests. In truth, Stossel has been at times a surprisingly lone voice of courage in the mainstream media, speaking out in defense of free speech against frightening examples of censorship in America. If he were merely a cynical opportunist, he would have little reason to take stands where the rest of the establishment media remains silent.

Cheers...

Re: Stossel bias

[blorky.livejournal.com]

Defense of free speech does NOT mean that he has integrity in all areas of journalism. Do a web search on Stossel.
http://www.salon.com/media/media961022.html
http://www.vegsource.com/articles/organics.2020.htm

"During the 1995 annual national conference of the Society of Environmental
Journalists, Stossel was pressed by a reporter about whether he still
considered himself a journalist in view of the tens of thousands of dollars he
receives in speaking fees from chemical companies and other business groups.
Stossel replied, "Industry likes to hire me because they like what I have to
say." He then added that he supposed he was no longer a journalist in the
traditional sense but rather a reporter with a perspective."

[bsgi.livejournal.com]

preach that sermon Brother! preach!

Re: Stossel bias

[alexpgp.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Salon, eh? Obviously an unbiased, objective source of reporting.

Integrity in journalism? There is very little of that around, if any; certainly none survives on the national level. Reporters routinely boost their pet causes.

Dan Rather spoke at a Democratic fund-raiser, but solemnly swears he is objective in his reporting. Peter Jennings has said "We may tell you all the time that our principal aim in life is to communicate and assist, inform, whatever the fancy words are, our audience. But if you see injustice and you can get people to do something about it, ahh, it's just a glorious feeling."

Reporters routinely lob softball questions at people they like, and play hardball with people they don't; nobody questions their ethics when they do so. When reporters make up facts and stage "fixed" demonstrations to show off alleged product defects, few raise an eyebrow. When they present a case for or against something and omit opposing viewpoints, nobody really cares.

Unless such activities go against the media's rather establishmentarian orthodoxy, as Stossel's so often does.

Cheers...

Re: Stossel bias

[blorky.livejournal.com]

"Unless such activities go against the media's rather establishmentarian orthodoxy, as Stossel's so often does. "

When?

Bias is also different than deliberately presenting an untruth as fact, which ABC/Stossel have done.

Re: Stossel bias

[marxis.livejournal.com]

This time?

AN article written to discredit Stossel's integrity goes out of its way to make an exit strategy...