the author threw that last paragraph out there in effect lumping those institutions together, that was a disservice to the reader.
He sets up a frame with the economic argument; which I thought was informative and had a fair degree of integrity but on page 10 with this paragraph, I don't see clarification with his examples, just surreptitious obfuscation and perpetuation.
That paragraph wasn't necessary in making a sound economic or institutional point in particular by lumping in what I view as victims with the villains. Scientists have been in virtual total agreement regarding the reality of global warming climate change for decades and yet the corporate media have for too long treated this issue as if there was a serious debate.
What if he said some people have lost confidence in the institution of the Presidency because they don't believe Obama was born in the U.S.? Would people have viewed that as a tossed off remark?
With that sentence whether intentional or not I see this piece as subliminally picking up the corporate media propaganda mantle.
"Everywhere you look in America, you can see the erosion of public confidence in our foundational institutions. The media took its hit long ago, of course. But scientists are now widely derided as cooking climate numbers. Congress now has the lowest approval numbers in history. Bankers, once the dullest and most dependable citizens of the republic, are hiding in the Hamptons until the rage dies down."
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
