Comments on: Chris Matthews Wishes Americans Would Keep Their Noses Out of Governing America

By: ManchuCandidate

ManchuCandidate — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:50:11 +0000

@nojo:
True.

Like most things, the devil is in the nuances. It wouldn’t be so bad if the Teabaggers had some valid reasons beyond:

Constitution. Freedum. Freedum. Socialism!!! Dick Armey said so.

By: FlyingChainSaw

FlyingChainSaw — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:23:59 +0000

@SanFranLefty: @nojo: Nojo has some literature on it but I didn't really notice the all-pharma, all-the-time madness unil a few years ago. Now they might as wel have sitcom's about ED and run brief 30-second breaks of real scripted drama. "Tonight on ER, 11 guys come in for priapism and the nurses attempt treatment with homeopathic remedies on them without permission notes from home! Hilarity - and savage pestorking - ensues until one Dr notices clues their prescription histories!"

By: nojo

nojo — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:48:12 +0000

@ManchuCandidate: I had the Teabaggers in the back of my mind — what’s the difference between my sniping and theirs?

Trick question: There isn’t any.

As citizens, we all have the right to express our opinions. And we all have the right to have our opinions ignored, for any number of good reasons.

None of which Tweety mentioned.

Instead, he declared that only political insiders have the right to render judgment on our nation’s laws. The rest of us are just whiny backseat drivers, and we can suck it. I’m not one to drop the Villager meme, but I think I just saw a stunning example of it.

By: nojo

nojo — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:28:33 +0000

@SanFranLefty: I was going to say Bubba, but it looks like Ronnie, according to the FDA:

Until the mid-1980s, drug companies gave information about prescription drugs only to doctors and pharmacists. When these professionals thought it appropriate, they gave that information to their patients. However, during the 1980s, some drug companies started to give the general public more direct access to this information through DTC ads.

Has it been that long? Has an entire generation of Americans grown up with side-effects jokes?

By: SanFranLefty

SanFranLefty — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:59:50 +0000

@FlyingChainSaw: Was it during the Bush I Administration or Billy Bob's that the ban on pharmaceutical advertising was lifted?

By: Promnight

Promnight — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 04:24:56 +0000

@ManchuCandidate: On this note of hopelessness and despair, I am off to bed.

By: Promnight

Promnight — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 04:23:45 +0000

@FlyingChainSaw: When they start listing the potential side effects it becomes absurd, they present this advertisement about how some wonder drug can cure your restless leg syndrome, then they list the parade of horrors, "may cause uncontrollable flatulence, explosive diarrhea, galloping acne, stomach cancer, or sudden death with no warning. Discontinue use if you go blind, experience prolonged pyschotic interludes, or suffer bleeding from the penis, ears, or sudden prolapse of the rectum. Tell your doctor that this drug may be inappropriate for you if you drink water, coffee, fruit juices, cola products, milk, or consume any food product containing carbon or hydrogen.

By: ManchuCandidate

ManchuCandidate — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 04:16:45 +0000

@Promnight:
I think you’re correct.

Just follow the money. Who advertises on 24 hr news nets? Pretty much the usual suspects: Big Pharma/Big Energy/Defense/Big Agra/Big Finance/Big Real Estate/Big Insurance (health etc.)

And who’s fucked all of us harder than anyone? See above.

I sometimes shake my head at my fellow liberals. I want to see a rational world run not always by the spreadsheet balance, but I also know that we are up against a very powerful interconnected machine with resources that we can not compare. It’s not to say we can’t win. We can, but the odds are against us.

Does any one of them think that Big ETC is going to suddenly give up their cash, their influence and their power because it is GOOD and RIGHT to do so? HELL NO. The only way is to chip a little at a time till one day it crumbles. As I said before, there is no knock out blow in this fight.

JoeLies are, unfortunately, more common than one wants to hope/believe.

By: FlyingChainSaw

FlyingChainSaw — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 04:01:19 +0000

@Promnight: I've had a number of colleagues from overseas approach me at industrial events after a couple of evenings and note the sheer force of pharma advertising on TV - and the fact that they didn't notice it in years past. I see TV maybe once a quarter unless I travel and don't have a radio to keep tempo while I work. When I do, it is almost freakish in its intensity, frequency and obsequious obeisance to FDA-mandated disclaimers. "Please stop taking fuckonocturia if your head becomes separated from your body or if you successfully suicide. . ." It is relentless to the point where it could provoke suspicion in consumers so your thesis has some power.

By: Promnight

Promnight — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:51:06 +0000

@ManchuCandidate: I have for a long time believed that big pharma spends such massive amounts of money on advertising for prescription drugs on the networks and cable shows, and overwhelmingly during their news shows, is not because they genuinely hope to increase sales by going over the heads of the doctors who have to make a diagnosis and prescribe these drugs.

I am convinced its a form of bribery. From the few times I actually watch a network news broadcast, it seems to me, that pharma ads are the majority of all advertising during news shows.

Are these news shows, which seem to be deriving a majority of their income from ads placed by big pharma, going to present the news maybe favorably to their biggest sponsors? Is a news operation which derives the majority of its income from advertising by drug manufacturers going to air a big hard-hitting story about drug prices, or kickbacks to doctors, is someone whose income is coming from the big drug companies going to report favorably on any political proposition to regulate big pharma advertising, are they going to do a story on patent abuse by big pharma, are they going to do a story on inneffective but highly advertised drugs?

I mean, this seems pretty elementary, my dear Watsons, Big Pharma has made sure that they are the source of the lion’s share of the income of the mainstream media news operations.

Can you think of a better way to legally buy the news media?