The left-wing blogger bashes “free” online access to certain services, but his story is written on a FREE site…on the Internet!
by Larry Simons
May 11, 2009
Our favorite left-wing fraud is back. Blogger Andy Ostroy, in his latest article, is suggesting the Internet is killing the economy and life as we know it here in the United States. Ostroy makes a few valid points about the impersonalization of online shopping. I can personally think of pros and cons of how the Internet affects our economy, but I am not 100% convinced it is the sole culprit.
First of all, Ostroy begins the article with again mentioning that we are now in a colossal economic crisis (which we are) and compares it to the Great Depression of the 1930’s (and rightfully so). Here lies the contradiction: Ostroy did a story on April 28, 2009 called, “What Obama’s Done for America’s Confidence”, in which he all but denied we were in an economic crisis at all by saying this:
“…..the simple truth is that his [Obama’s] first 100 days have achieved major progress in turning around the economy, restoring consumer confidence, and curbing the hemorrhaging in both the banking and housing crises. Not bad for 100 days”
In that article Ostroy implied that the recession that nearly every single economic expert has said we are in is just in our heads….just perception. Now, twelve days later we are back to a Great Depression again without any mention of Obama’s name in this latest article. Now the enemy is the Internet. Ostroy also completely ignores any mention of the fact that during the 1930's, there was no Internet, and still we suffered a depression far worse than the one we are in presently.
In several ways, it cannot be denied that the Internet hurts the economy. If I see a CD on sale on Amazon.com for $9.99 and that same CD is no lower than $16.99 at every store in my town and I choose to buy it online, I just denied my home state the 6 % sales tax and denied a local store $16.99. Of course it hurts that store if I do that. But, is the culprit the Internet?
I can’t speak for everyone, but I know when I shop for something, I search and search for the lowest price I can find for a particular item. I don’t care if it’s from a local store, online or from a homeless guy selling it from his shopping cart on the side of a road. I also know for a fact that if, in the aforementioned example, that if the Internet did not exist and my only choice was to spend $16.99 on that CD, I would not have purchased it. So, in this particular example, how did I hurt the economy by buying something that was cheap when I would not have purchased it otherwise? Ostroy fails to mention things like this.
My main criticism of Ostroy’s article is not with his point-by-point examples of whether the Internet hurts or does not hurt the economy. It is with his blatant hypocrisy on several issues.
First, Ostroy bashes the Internet because, he claims, many services are available online for “free”. He says this:
“As someone who's formed and runs a few businesses, I can tell you firsthand that free is not good. Free never shows up on a P&L or a balance sheet. Free doesn't fatten the company's coffers and allow for growth and expansion. And you can't pay bills with free…..
Yet, the Internet is all about free. We can get our newspapers and magazines for free. We can watch televisions programs free. We can download movies and music free. We can book our own travel, send free mail, make free phone calls, send free greeting cards. We can, thanks to MySpace, Facebook and Twitter to name a few, even socialize for free, never having to leave the house or spend one red-cent actually socializing the way truly sociable folks used to.”
Yet Andy admitted that he actually has a Facebook page in his March 24, 2009 article titled, “I Hate Facebook” when he said:
“…I am a citizen of the Facebook nation. I was lured there by a dear friend with promises of mega-business-networking benefits, and I must also confess to periodically using the site for shameless self-promotion to my vast empire of 165 friends.”
So, is Ostroy writing a check to Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg every month, or is he just being a colossal hypocritical FRAUD? I think the correct answer is obvious.
Ostroy also never mentions why the Internet itself is to blame for the “free” services. Why aren’t free music and movie downloading sites shut down if the economy is so hurt by this? Newspaper and magazine sites are created by the very same newspapers and magazines they represent! How is that the Internet’s fault? If they are suffering such great economic losses, why don’t they shut their OWN sites down?
What I found hilarious is the fact that while I was reading Ostroy’s article bashing this “rapacious beast” and “economic black hole” (as he puts it) known as the Internet, is the fact that Andy was writing this story on a FREE blogspot on….the Internet! Yet, I did not see any mention in Ostroy’s article that he is writing checks to Eric E. Schmidt (Chairman and CEO of Google, who owns Blogger.com).
So, here is Andy Ostroy, taking advantage of a FREE service....his own website, and not paying Google one red cent for it! Let’s all say it together folks…….HYPOCRITICAL FRAUD!
Then, to make matters worse, Ostroy mentions the fact that media mogul Rupert Murdoch announced this past week that his News Corporation will now be charging for content on his newspaper websites without mentioning the real reason why. Ostroy says it is because Murdoch claims that the current system is a “malfunctioning” business model and that newspapers were experiencing an “epochal” debate over charging newspapers for content.
Maybe the real reason is because people are waking up and turning to the alternative and independent media for their news and information. Maybe people have finally rejected the constant lies and deception of the corporate media and have grown sick and tired of the blatant covering up of, and lack of interest in reporting, major newsworthy events.
I also laughed out loud when Ostroy predicted, “I'll bet he'll [Murdoch] make it all work and have the last laugh. Hopefully, others will follow suit.” The only thing Murdoch will accomplish by charging for news content is increased readership of alternative media. They are actually in quite a dilemma. As writer Paul Watson puts it:
“If they continue to allow free access to their content they will go out of business because there’s not enough advertising revenue coming in, whereas if they charge for content they will lose a huge chunk of their audience and their influence in shaping the news agenda will wane completely.”
Let others follow suit Andy. The final result will be even greater masses of well informed citizens. And when more and more find out the real truth about Obama, you will have a lot more than just the right wing to worry about.
People turning away from Rupert Murdoch’s right wing spin machine should make people like Andy Ostroy rejoice since he is a far-left Obama apologist. Maybe therein lies the contradiction. Ostroy has been a guest on the FoxNews.com online program The Strategy Room several times as a political pundit. So, there’s an incentive for Ostroy to be a spokesperson for Rupert Murdoch and be an enemy of free speech. He gets a salary from Rup-i-boy!
And therein lies yet another Andy Ostroy contradiction: The Strategy Room can only be seen ON THE INTERNET……….for FREE.
This was my response to his article on his blog (which may not be ‘approved’ on his site):
Andy, you've made a few MINOR good points but overall, you're completely misguided on this entire issue. First of all I have to address the Rupert Murdoch issue. If you think for ONE minute that the issue with him CHARGING for online newspaper access has ANYTHING to do with money, you must have a very long neck because your head is completely up your ass.
The Murdoch issue is about the fact, (FACT I say) that his newspapers and TV networks have seen record plummeting of profits of $216 million to just 7 million year-on-year. MySpace.com's profits are also plummeting. This is actually a very GOOD thing--I would even say GREAT thing. This means that the people in general and his loyal readers have been rejecting the constant lies and spin of mainstream media and have since turned to blogs and alternative media for their information. How in the HELL is this bad? You CONSTANTLY put down FOX News and slam anyone who takes part in FOX News programming, but when you find out that their revenue has decreased dramatically, you dont see that as a FANTASTIC thing?
The ironic thing is, with Murdoch soon to be CHARGING for online access to his papers, he will only see an INCREASE in people switching to the alternative media and to blogs! This should make you jump for joy naked in fields of daisies! And youre BASHING it because Rupert Murdoch is not raking in MORE cash? Would you be happier if he owned New York City and they changed the city's name to Rupertville? My God Andy...I know you're a guest on the Strategy Room (on FoxNews.com) but geesh---your loyalty to Murdoch is THAT deep for one little online show that nobody watches? Hey wait a minute Andy----the Strategy Room is an ONLINE show ONLY.....people get that for FREE, right?????? Hmmmmmmm.
By the way Andy. That brings me to ANOTHER great point. How much are you paying Blogger.com for this blog? Did you say ZERO? I know for a FACT it's free because MY site is on Blogger too and I pay nothing. (By the way, I know for this point ALONE will make you REJECT my post) Free SUCKS huh? Shut down your site then Andy and put your money where your hypocritical mouth is (or make a check out to Blogger.com).
You said this "Yet, the Internet is all about free. We can get our newspapers and magazines for free. We can watch televisions programs free. We can download movies and music free. We can book our own travel, send free mail, make free phone calls, send free greeting cards. We can, thanks to MySpace, Facebook and Twitter to name a few, even socialize for free, never having to leave the house or spend one red-cent actually socializing the way truly sociable folks used to."
NOWHERE in that paragraph did you mention that ANY of that was the fault of the medium of the internet alone. Newspapers and magazines are free because the VERY company gives free access to everyone! That's THEIR fault! TV programs for free? Once again, that's the VERY company's fault! Each example given in that paragraph is the particular company that is giving the access for free! Why do they even ALLOW the free access to begin with if they are experiencing a colossal loss of revenue?
You also mentioned downloading songs? Why arent the Feds shutting down the sites then? You blame all of this on the internet itself when in reality, the fault lies with everyone outside of the net! You also mentioned mailing for free. Well, if the fucking post office would stop increasing the cost of stamps every 5 months, we would probably buy more stamps! I have a deal for the post office: If they lower the cost of stamps to what the price was before there was email, I will drastically decrease my email use. But, they WONT---so emailing wins! By the way Andy---when is the last time YOU sent an email? Let me guess, an hour ago? HYPOCRITE.
You never mentioned ONCE in your story all the commerce that is conducted and BILLIONS of dollars made on the net. Every Christmas it seems that internet sales go up. Sites like Wal-Mart, Target, Amazon.com, iTunes---and scores of other retailers rack up ASTRONOMICAL profits. Was that mentioned in your story? Hell no.
You said this, "Think about all the businesses, all the people, who've been slammed by this economic black hole called the Internet", and then didnt mention ONE that has.
How did the INTERNET kill the movie after-markets? Are you referring to Netflix? Are you not for the free market Andy? Netflix has the rights to those movies being rented as cheap as they want to rent them. Plus, even if Netflix didnt exist, there's still the DVD kiosks like Redbox, that require NO internet service, and you can rent them for $1 a night. Once again, that's the free market, not the Internet.
You work in NYC right? Have you seen how much is charged for seeing a movie and popcorn and soda?? Maybe less people are seeing movies because they COST SO GODDAMNED MUCH! Did THAT ever occur to you? Going to a movie with my family is a goddamned EVENT that we have to save up for like Im saving to buy a boat or something! I know everyone isnt as rich as you Andy, but spending $50 bucks on ONE movie for me, my wife and my kid is a TAD out of my range. I pick waiting 2 months and renting it from Redbox anyday---and that has NOTHING to do with the Internet!
You DO make a valid point about money not spent in social establishments because of the internet---BUT, it is my understanding that America is STILL a free country, so if people choose to be online rather than in a club, that's an issue of personal FREEDOM---NOT about the Internet. You could make the same argument about cell phones, that people choose to talk on them rather than talk to a person sitting right beside them, but I didnt see you bash cell phones in your story.
You said, "hopefully others will follow suit" referring to Murdoch charging customers for online content? Really Andy? You really want that? What is it that youre REALLY afraid of Andy? Informed citizens? Like I said earlier, the mainstream media can charge all they fucking want to----that will only INCREASE readership of alternative news sites that are FREE and who report MORE truth and far less spin and lies. By the way Andy, since you're all about paying, are you willing to get your checkbook out right NOW and write checks payable to the New York Times, WSJ and The Boston Globe even BEFORE they begin charging?
The bottom line is: people are waking up to the alternative media and saying, "fuck you" to the mainstream media and the MSM is PANICKING. We already know that the Obama lovers are against the 2nd amendment----now with your story Andy, we are beginning to see that you hate the first amendment too.
I'm still laughing that you wrote a story bashing the Internet because it's "killing the economy" because of so many "free things" you can do on it--and it was posted on a FREE site on....the INTERNET.