Wayne Lapierre, head of the NRA, just today at CPAC gave a number to how much left-wing protesters are being paid. $1500 a week. If this is true I am quitting my current job immediately.
With 500,000 people at the women's march in Washington, D.C. alone, that would amount to 750 million dollars.
Spent after the election, instead of during the campaign, when it would have made a bigger difference.
To finance a single event.
While leaving no paper trail.
For just shy of ONE BILLION dollars.
No. Lapierre made that number up.
He lied.
Lying is not okay.
People who do it are liars.
As I stated previously, there are professional protesters, paid through charities, who receive donations from corporations looking to thwart competition.
Not every protester is a paid protester, but there are people paid to protest.
$1500 a week is $40 an hour for 5 days and 7.5 hours a day. This number doesn't seem unreasonable to me, this sum is probably for the people who start organizing events (getting the permits in different cities for example) and make sure the protest stays on topic. This also isn't a full time job, and protests maybe weeks or months apart.
If you want to get in on this sort of "cash grab" start volunteering at a vocal charity or group (Tides Canada, Black Lives Matter) or start your own.
@ThacoBell Do you think sex offenders care much for subtlety?
The ease of access would be further encouragement for them. For the record, I don't know if I'm for or against this, but its important to look at every possible angle. This isn't as simple as people seem to think it is.
Wayne Lapierre, head of the NRA, just today at CPAC gave a number to how much left-wing protesters are being paid. $1500 a week. If this is true I am quitting my current job immediately.
With 500,000 people at the women's march in Washington, D.C. alone, that would amount to 750 million dollars.
Spent after the election, instead of during the campaign, when it would have made a bigger difference.
To finance a single event.
While leaving no paper trail.
For just shy of ONE BILLION dollars.
No. Lapierre made that number up.
He lied.
Lying is not okay.
People who do it are liars.
As I stated previously, there are professional protesters, paid through charities, who receive donations from corporations looking to thwart competition.
Not every protester is a paid protester, but there are people paid to protest.
$1500 a week is $40 an hour for 5 days and 7.5 hours a day. This number doesn't seem unreasonable to me, this sum is probably for the people who start organizing events (getting the permits in different cities for example) and make sure the protest stays on topic. This also isn't a full time job, and protests maybe weeks or months apart.
If you want to get in on this sort of "cash grab" start volunteering at a vocal charity or group (Tides Canada, Black Lives Matter) or start your own.
This is not what the right is referring to, at all. They are specifically going out of their way to make it seem like every person on the street and every person at town halls is "paid". They aren't referring to professional organizers. They are trying to discount EVERYONE with this tag.
@deltago: I find it perfectly plausible that a paid member of a political party might encourage and organize protestors. After all, a lot of people join political parties because they've been politically active all their lives. Many are former protestors themselves.
But that's not the idea that the administration has been pushing. Whenever I hear the administration and its defenders call out "paid protestors," they're not saying there's one guy or a handful of guys being paid to lead the group. They're saying everyone in the crowd is just paid to be there; that nobody really believes in the cause.
They're pushing the notion that the only reason these protests are happening is because corrupt people made them happen. That's the notion I object to.
The main reason I find it so implausible is because financing protests is simply not an effective way of causing political change in this country. Protestors don't enact legislation; they have no power of their own.
Protests can indeed have an impact, but if you want to spend money to manipulate politics, you don't waste it on citizens. You go to the source. Laws are written by think tanks and passed by Congress. When people want to purchase political power, they donate to a political campaign, because it places politicians--the people who actually have political power--in their debt.
Corrupt people bribe the powerful, not the powerless. It's a better use of their money.
The actual issue is that we are living in an increasing class divide, where the ones who have control and are vocal in their views are One Class of People against the other class.
The upper-class have a stranglehold on all institutions of power, whom does the Government, the Media, the upper-echelons of corporations, academia consist of? Upper-class people.
Whom do the manual labor workers, military-men, policemen, construction workers consist of? lower-class people, coincidentally they are the people we least hear from and least listen too.
This is an economic divide, and the central issue's today revolve around this class divide.
Why is immigration an issue? largely it is not an issue of discrimination, it is an issue of its vastly different affect on these classes of people.
For lower-class people, mass-immigration is often not a greatly positive thing, for manual labor workers it is a direct threat to their ability to get a job, and for police-men they often have to contend with the many problems from vastly different cultural groups immigrating here.
For academia, Government, Media and corporations, is it a negative? it is either irrelevant or a positive, as the corporations get access to a massive number of low-paid workers, coincidentally all these institutions tend to exhibit the one same attitude towards immigration, which is to promote it.
Because they consist the upper-class.
The inability for people to acknowledge that different groups of people are affected differently by the same issue, makes us blind to the problems other people face.
In this dynamic, the generally regressive or 'wrong' group is the upper-class (which is born out from history too) because the upper-class Tends to force their views on the lower class.
I rarely see poor working glass browbeat the upper-class on the issue of immigration, i do see the upper-class reflexively call the lower-class people racists and go all out to destroy their reputation publicly.
The actual issue is that we are living in an increasing class divide, where the ones who have control and are vocal in their views are One Class of People against the other class.
The upper-class have a stranglehold on all institutions of power, whom does the Government, the Media, the upper-echelons of corporations, academia consist of? Upper-class people.
Whom do the manual labor workers, military-men, policemen, construction workers consist of? lower-class people, coincidentally they are the people we least hear from and least listen too.
This is an economic divide, and the central issue's today revolve around this class divide.
Why is immigration an issue? largely it is not an issue of discrimination, it is an issue of its vastly different affect on these classes of people.
For lower-class people, mass-immigration is often not a greatly positive thing, for manual labor workers it is a direct threat to their ability to get a job, and for police-men they often have to contend with the many problems from vastly different cultural groups immigrating here.
For academia, Government, Media and corporations, is it a negative? it is either irrelevant or a positive, as the corporations get access to a massive number of low-paid workers, coincidentally all these institutions tend to exhibit the one same attitude towards immigration, which is to promote it.
Because they consist the upper-class.
The inability for people to acknowledge that different groups of people are affected differently by the same issue, makes us blind to the problems other people face.
In this dynamic, the generally regressive or 'wrong' group is the upper-class (which is born out from history too) because the upper-class Tends to force their views on the lower class.
I rarely see poor working glass browbeat the upper-class on the issue of immigration, i do see the upper-class reflexively call the lower-class people racists and go all out to destroy their reputation publicly.
Agreed, but both parties are on the take now. I'm not sure it could be done, but I'd really like to change our system from two party (which was never intended by the founders of our country) to a parliamentary government. There's too much leverage by the powers that be for that to happen without some kind of grass-roots uprising. Trump might not be what was intended but it may end up being a step in the right direction. He is certainly not what either party wanted. It may ultimately be just what the doctor ordered...
The actual issue is that we are living in an increasing class divide, where the ones who have control and are vocal in their views are One Class of People against the other class.
The upper-class have a stranglehold on all institutions of power, whom does the Government, the Media, the upper-echelons of corporations, academia consist of? Upper-class people.
Whom do the manual labor workers, military-men, policemen, construction workers consist of? lower-class people, coincidentally they are the people we least hear from and least listen too.
This is an economic divide, and the central issue's today revolve around this class divide.
Why is immigration an issue? largely it is not an issue of discrimination, it is an issue of its vastly different affect on these classes of people.
For lower-class people, mass-immigration is often not a greatly positive thing, for manual labor workers it is a direct threat to their ability to get a job, and for police-men they often have to contend with the many problems from vastly different cultural groups immigrating here.
For academia, Government, Media and corporations, is it a negative? it is either irrelevant or a positive, as the corporations get access to a massive number of low-paid workers, coincidentally all these institutions tend to exhibit the one same attitude towards immigration, which is to promote it.
Because they consist the upper-class.
The inability for people to acknowledge that different groups of people are affected differently by the same issue, makes us blind to the problems other people face.
In this dynamic, the generally regressive or 'wrong' group is the upper-class (which is born out from history too) because the upper-class Tends to force their views on the lower class.
I rarely see poor working glass browbeat the upper-class on the issue of immigration, i do see the upper-class reflexively call the lower-class people racists and go all out to destroy their reputation publicly.
Agreed but both parties are on the take now. Trump is clearly not what was intended by either party.
I would ultimately like to see the end of the two party system in the U.S. Trump may turn out to be a step in the right direction. There won't be any change without some kind of grass-roots response to the powers that be. A parliamentary government of some sort would be a marked improvement over what we have now. The far left and far right are very vocal and very loyal. I'd like to see their power diminished by an order of magnitude. I say be patient and see what happens. Maybe the centrists can win out in the end...
The actual issue is that we are living in an increasing class divide, where the ones who have control and are vocal in their views are One Class of People against the other class.
The upper-class have a stranglehold on all institutions of power, whom does the Government, the Media, the upper-echelons of corporations, academia consist of? Upper-class people.
Whom do the manual labor workers, military-men, policemen, construction workers consist of? lower-class people, coincidentally they are the people we least hear from and least listen too.
This is an economic divide, and the central issue's today revolve around this class divide.
Why is immigration an issue? largely it is not an issue of discrimination, it is an issue of its vastly different affect on these classes of people.
For lower-class people, mass-immigration is often not a greatly positive thing, for manual labor workers it is a direct threat to their ability to get a job, and for police-men they often have to contend with the many problems from vastly different cultural groups immigrating here.
For academia, Government, Media and corporations, is it a negative? it is either irrelevant or a positive, as the corporations get access to a massive number of low-paid workers, coincidentally all these institutions tend to exhibit the one same attitude towards immigration, which is to promote it.
Because they consist the upper-class.
The inability for people to acknowledge that different groups of people are affected differently by the same issue, makes us blind to the problems other people face.
In this dynamic, the generally regressive or 'wrong' group is the upper-class (which is born out from history too) because the upper-class Tends to force their views on the lower class.
I rarely see poor working glass browbeat the upper-class on the issue of immigration, i do see the upper-class reflexively call the lower-class people racists and go all out to destroy their reputation publicly.
So Trump, his billionaire buddies, and the relatively affluent suburban and rural whites who voted for him (med. income: 72K), are now the lower class. While Clinton and her millionaire buddies and the somewhat less well off city dwellers who voted for her (med. income 61K) are the upper class? Strange definition of upper and lower that you're working from.
They're definitely not lower class. But they're not ruling class. The ruling class comes predominately from 'old money'. New money is not welcome into the picture.
They're definitely not lower class. But they're not ruling class. The ruling class comes predominately from 'old money'. New money is not welcome into the picture.
and those making less than a million dollars a year are even less welcome.
They're definitely not lower class. But they're not ruling class. The ruling class comes predominately from 'old money'. New money is not welcome into the picture.
and those making less than a million dollars a year are even less welcome.
Brexit and Trump seem to me to be manifestations of inter-elite conflicts. The factions which advocate 'closed' societies are riding the tiger of inequality for their own ends.
Agreed but both parties are on the take now. Trump is clearly not what was intended by either party.
I would ultimately like to see the end of the two party system in the U.S. Trump may turn out to be a step in the right direction. There won't be any change without some kind of grass-roots response to the powers that be. A parliamentary government of some sort would be a marked improvement over what we have now. The far left and far right are very vocal and very loyal. I'd like to see their power diminished by an order of magnitude. I say be patient and see what happens. Maybe the centrists can win out in the end...
Indeed, Trump and Brexit is a backlash against the previous prevailing cultural and political attitudes, that of identity politics over economic concerns.
Viewing the past major incidents in the West, we see a pattern:
1. European Immigrant/Refugee crisis 2. Brexit 3. Trump
What was the outcome? and what was the response by the institutions of power (media, Government, academia).
1. People who were against the refugee's were racist 2. People who were for Brexit were racist 3. People who voted for Trump are racist
Considering that the outcome of brexit is statistically known, a majority of people voted to get out. How is it even possible for the media to be so heavily slanted (by vast majority) to be against Brexit?
If the media was impartial, or at least consisted of a balanced slice of people as the common society, we should have at least expected the coverage to be close to 50/50 for/against brexit.
History has shown us time and again, that when the rich and affluent live in their own isolated cultural group's and start to abuse the less well off, class conflict erupts.
Brexit was an alarming phenomenon, that a majority of people can be slandered by the media wholesale as being implied to be 'racists' or 'white supremacists' is unthinkable, and yet it has become common. I consider now the media to be a far greater danger to society because they can abuse more then half a nation without consequence.
If people think the media is too quick to shout racism, they can refuse to watch the media. The media lives off of our viewing patterns; it survives because people continue to watch it.
For what it's worth, the media can't cause a lot of actual harm to us. The media can't pass laws to hurt anybody; its only power is speech. Calling somebody a racist can be crude and insulting and wrong, but other people's words can't break our legs or pick our pockets.
If people think the media is too quick to shout racism, they can refuse to watch the media. The media lives off of our viewing patterns; it survives because people continue to watch it.
For what it's worth, the media can't cause a lot of actual harm to us. The media can't pass laws to hurt anybody; its only power is speech. Calling somebody a racist can be crude and insulting and wrong, but other people's words can't break our legs or pick our pockets.
Many people in the West are jailed on the crimes of 'hate-speech'.
Not every country in the West actually promotes Freedom of Speech, not even in their constitution.
The media has institutional power, they can effectively create a smear campaign and you will most likely lose your job at best, and jailed at worse.
Most people only see the world through the eyes of the media.
I rely on my local newspaper to keep me up to date with what's going on in my home town but I have enough local knowledge to sort the wheat from the chaff.
However, as the distance between the news sources and my home town increases, my critical perception diminishes and I have to rely more and more heavily on the accuracy and impartiality of the news source. Which is why the only countries that I feel qualified to voice an opinion about are those in which I've lived and worked - and equally when I want an opinion about countries other than those I ask someone I know personally or go to a reputable and verifiable source (definitely not social media).
If people think the media is too quick to shout racism, they can refuse to watch the media. The media lives off of our viewing patterns; it survives because people continue to watch it.
For what it's worth, the media can't cause a lot of actual harm to us. The media can't pass laws to hurt anybody; its only power is speech. Calling somebody a racist can be crude and insulting and wrong, but other people's words can't break our legs or pick our pockets.
Many people in the West are jailed on the crimes of 'hate-speech'.
Not every country in the West actually promotes Freedom of Speech, not even in their constitution.
The media has institutional power, they can effectively create a smear campaign and you will most likely lose your job at best, and jailed at worse.
Things may certainly be different in certain countries in Europe (likely due to their direct contact with fascism in the 30s and 40s) but NO ONE in the US has been jailed for their speech. No such laws exist. Losing your job for something you say is not even a free speech issue, it's an issue of the market. Free speech does not extend beyond the State's power to punish you legally for saying something. Beyond that, it's simply a matter of competing free speech among the public. As long as you aren't being jailed or fined by a State authority, claiming your free speech has been violated is a fundamental misunderstanding of how it works. At least in the US, you are protected from government censorship. You are not immune to the social consequences.
For instance, last year people took footage of a guy driving around in his company vehicle screaming racial epitaphs at black people. He wasn't officially punished by the State (even though he was harassing innocent people). But his company sure as hell canned his ass when it went viral. I doubt anyone would argue his rights got violated. Indeed, since the State DOESN'T dish out punishment for speech, the fact that society itself does is the only reason we can have a modicum of a civil society.
Again, this only speaks for the US. I would imagine some countries in Europe (especially Germany and Austria) may have certain things that are not permissible to say. It would be fairly obvious why. We've seen how rampant hate speech can devolve into genocide.
A fair proportion of the media have supported, or even instigated, concerns about immigration- often with a less than healthy regard to reality. Many have argued that the BBC was excessively balanced in regard to its coverage of opinion relative to fact. The representation of the judiciary in the UK as 'enemies of the people' is an example of how some sections of the media have tried to leverage the referendum as a weapon against the establishment. It doesn't really make sense to me to talk of 'the media' without discussing elite figures like Rupert Murdoch in any case.
Things may certainly be different in certain countries in Europe (likely due to their direct contact with fascism in the 30s and 40s) but NO ONE in the US has been jailed for their speech. No such laws exist. Losing your job for something you say is not even a free speech issue, it's an issue of the market. Free speech does not extend beyond the State's power to punish you legally for saying something. Beyond that, it's simply a matter of competing free speech among the public. As long as you aren't being jailed or fined by a State authority, claiming your free speech has been violated is a fundamental misunderstanding of how it works. At least in the US, you are protected from government censorship. You are not immune to the social consequences.
For instance, last year people took footage of a guy driving around in his company vehicle screaming racial epitaphs at black people. He wasn't officially punished by the State (even though he was harassing innocent people). But his company sure as hell canned his ass when it went viral. I doubt anyone would argue his rights got violated. Indeed, since the State DOESN'T dish out punishment for speech, the fact that society itself does is the only reason we can have a modicum of a civil society.
In the US the 1st Amendment was historically enacted to protect the press from Government restriction, and this has been loosely applied to the citizenry however there have been many violations of the 1st amendment because The Obama administration is well known for its crackdown and attempts to jail Whistleblowers of Government crime.
However there existed an assumption That the Press was fully separate from the Government.
Much of US media organisations work in tandem with existing ruling Government political parties., it is well known that CNN is more often then not a propaganda piece for the Democratic party, as well as other media channels. We have actual hard evidence of this from Wiki-leaks.
When the Democrat Party wished to characterise Trump supporters as 'Deplorables' (in the words of Hillary Clinton herself') and the Democratically aligned media organizations Also portray Donald Trump supporters as Racist and in particular often attack any figure speaking in support of Donald Trump as a 'racist'.
This is in fact a clear violation and subversion of the 1st Amendment, because The Government is using their Media Arm to attack those who speak publicly in support of Donald Trump.
There are many ways in which the Government can oppress a person to silence them, without simply throwing them in jail.
Things may certainly be different in certain countries in Europe (likely due to their direct contact with fascism in the 30s and 40s) but NO ONE in the US has been jailed for their speech. No such laws exist. Losing your job for something you say is not even a free speech issue, it's an issue of the market. Free speech does not extend beyond the State's power to punish you legally for saying something. Beyond that, it's simply a matter of competing free speech among the public. As long as you aren't being jailed or fined by a State authority, claiming your free speech has been violated is a fundamental misunderstanding of how it works. At least in the US, you are protected from government censorship. You are not immune to the social consequences.
For instance, last year people took footage of a guy driving around in his company vehicle screaming racial epitaphs at black people. He wasn't officially punished by the State (even though he was harassing innocent people). But his company sure as hell canned his ass when it went viral. I doubt anyone would argue his rights got violated. Indeed, since the State DOESN'T dish out punishment for speech, the fact that society itself does is the only reason we can have a modicum of a civil society.
No, this displays a misunderstanding of free speech as it exists in the US today.
In the US the 1st Amendment was historically enacted to protect the press from Government restriction, and this has been loosely applied to the citizenry albeit not perfectly because The Obama administration is well known for its crackdown on Whistleblowers of Government crime.
However there existed an assumption That the Press was fully separate from the Government.
The Supreme Court has also historically struggled on how to apply Defamation Law as it exists in the US against the 1st Amendment, as existing Libel and Slander laws do not always work well with the 1st Amendment, particularly on the area remarks on politicians or Government officials.
Much of US media organisations work in tandem with existing ruling Government political parties., it is well known that CNN is more often then not a propaganda piece for the Democratic party, as well as other media channels.
We have actual hard evidence of this from Wiki-leaks.
A media that exists as an 'arm' of the Government is part of the Government itself.
When the Democrat Party wished to characterise Trump supporters as 'Deplorables' (in the words of Hillary Clinton herself') and the Democratically aligned media organizations Also portray Donald Trump supporters as Racist and in particular often attack any figure speaking in support of Donald Trump as a 'racist'.
This is in fact a clear violation of the 1st Amendment, because The Government is using their Media Arm to attack those who speak publicly in support of Donald Trump.
There are many ways in which the Government can oppress a person to silence them, without simply throwing them in jail.
Furthermore, Freedom of Speech as an ideal goes further then simply The Government.
Historically the founders really only considered two sides, the Government as the Power, and everything else as powerless (which is why they did not include a proviso for a media that has become part of the Government arm).
However in our society today we have clear institutions that are as powerful, if not more powerful in some cases then the Government, this includes the media itself as well as massive corporations.
Freedom of Speech, as an ethical ideal, applies to these groups as well in order to restrict them against the citizenry.
I fundamentally disagree with this. The media can certainly shape perception, but they have no legal authority to do anything. The "idea" of free speech can be anything a particular person wants it to be, but unless restricting saying something is codified into law, it really doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
I don't know where the media is being used as an arm to attack Trump voters. It seems all I ever see on channels like CNN is panels about how Trump voters are feeling about the protests, and how liberals need to understand them more. The idea that Hillary Clinton had a "media arm" working in her favor is laughable. I can't think of a single politician who has ever had more media scrutiny directed at them than Hillary Clinton. And even IF an channel like CNN was in the pocket of a politician (like FOX is with Trump, or any Republican), that isn't a violation of anyone's free speech. The argument you are making is a philosophical one, it carries no actual weight in legality.
I fundamentally disagree with this. The media can certainly shape perception, but they have no legal authority to do anything. The "idea" of free speech can be anything a particular person wants it to be, but unless restricting saying something is codified into law, it really doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
I don't know where the media is being used as an arm to attack Trump voters. It seems all I ever see on channels like CNN is panels about how Trump voters are feeling about the protests, and how liberals need to understand them more. The idea that Hillary Clinton had a "media arm" working in her favor is laughable. I can't think of a single politician who has ever had more media scrutiny directed at them than Hillary Clinton. And even IF an channel like CNN was in the pocket of a politician (like FOX is with Trump, or any Republican), that isn't a violation of anyone's free speech. The argument you are making is a philosophical one, it carries no actual weight in legality.
Your earlier assertion has already been disproven, Because the Obama administration is well known to attempt to jail whistleblowers and journalists. So the 1st Amendment in America has been violated many many times.
Much of the media organizations are an arm of the Democrat party.
Are you even aware that a vast number of media personnel get their position Through favors, donations and ties to Democrat politicians?.
You might want to take a look at George Stephanopoulos who is the Chief Anchor and the Chief Political Correspondent for ABC News, who worked on Bill Clinton's campaign as their Communications Director and White House Communications Director, and made donations to the Clinton Foundation.
For even more disturbing ties, you might want to look at the President of news Organisations such as CBS and see how they are literally married or directly related to high Obama personnel.
You may also want to take a look at Wiki-leaks revealing of the close ties with the Democrat party,To the point CNN rigged the election debates against Bernie Sanders by giving Hillary Clinton the questions in advance.
It's interesting you say Clinton doesn't have a media arm, when we have hard evidence for it.
I laugh at the claim 'Hillary Clinton has had more media scrutiny then anyone' since that is actually a line from the Democrat party in defense of Hillary Clinton, i also laugh at this because Hillary Clinton has broken crimes greater then most people and she isn't in jail.
You might want to take a look at how her compromise of national security didn't involve jail time, when anyone who actually does that in the Military does go to Jail.
Finally on the topic of CNN portraying or implying Trump supporters as 'racists', its interesting you haven't seen that, when Van Jones himself TELLS a family of Trump supporters that a common line about Trump supporters is that they are racist.
Many people in the West are jailed on the crimes of 'hate-speech'.
Not every country in the West actually promotes Freedom of Speech, not even in their constitution.
And this is factually true, don't try to move the goal-post and make it seem like i was referring to specifically whistle-blowers in America since the discussion specifically of America was someone else's discussion about the the 1st Amendment in America.
There is ample evidence of jailing of people for 'hate speech' in Europe, such as Dieudonné.
Comments
Not every protester is a paid protester, but there are people paid to protest.
$1500 a week is $40 an hour for 5 days and 7.5 hours a day. This number doesn't seem unreasonable to me, this sum is probably for the people who start organizing events (getting the permits in different cities for example) and make sure the protest stays on topic. This also isn't a full time job, and protests maybe weeks or months apart.
If you want to get in on this sort of "cash grab" start volunteering at a vocal charity or group (Tides Canada, Black Lives Matter) or start your own.
But that's not the idea that the administration has been pushing. Whenever I hear the administration and its defenders call out "paid protestors," they're not saying there's one guy or a handful of guys being paid to lead the group. They're saying everyone in the crowd is just paid to be there; that nobody really believes in the cause.
They're pushing the notion that the only reason these protests are happening is because corrupt people made them happen. That's the notion I object to.
The main reason I find it so implausible is because financing protests is simply not an effective way of causing political change in this country. Protestors don't enact legislation; they have no power of their own.
Protests can indeed have an impact, but if you want to spend money to manipulate politics, you don't waste it on citizens. You go to the source. Laws are written by think tanks and passed by Congress. When people want to purchase political power, they donate to a political campaign, because it places politicians--the people who actually have political power--in their debt.
Corrupt people bribe the powerful, not the powerless. It's a better use of their money.
The upper-class have a stranglehold on all institutions of power, whom does the Government, the Media, the upper-echelons of corporations, academia consist of? Upper-class people.
Whom do the manual labor workers, military-men, policemen, construction workers consist of? lower-class people, coincidentally they are the people we least hear from and least listen too.
This is an economic divide, and the central issue's today revolve around this class divide.
Why is immigration an issue? largely it is not an issue of discrimination, it is an issue of its vastly different affect on these classes of people.
For lower-class people, mass-immigration is often not a greatly positive thing, for manual labor workers it is a direct threat to their ability to get a job, and for police-men they often have to contend with the many problems from vastly different cultural groups immigrating here.
For academia, Government, Media and corporations, is it a negative? it is either irrelevant or a positive, as the corporations get access to a massive number of low-paid workers, coincidentally all these institutions tend to exhibit the one same attitude towards immigration, which is to promote it.
Because they consist the upper-class.
The inability for people to acknowledge that different groups of people are affected differently by the same issue, makes us blind to the problems other people face.
In this dynamic, the generally regressive or 'wrong' group is the upper-class (which is born out from history too) because the upper-class Tends to force their views on the lower class.
I rarely see poor working glass browbeat the upper-class on the issue of immigration, i do see the upper-class reflexively call the lower-class people racists and go all out to destroy their reputation publicly.
I would ultimately like to see the end of the two party system in the U.S. Trump may turn out to be a step in the right direction. There won't be any change without some kind of grass-roots response to the powers that be. A parliamentary government of some sort would be a marked improvement over what we have now. The far left and far right are very vocal and very loyal. I'd like to see their power diminished by an order of magnitude. I say be patient and see what happens. Maybe the centrists can win out in the end...
Viewing the past major incidents in the West, we see a pattern:
1. European Immigrant/Refugee crisis
2. Brexit
3. Trump
What was the outcome? and what was the response by the institutions of power (media, Government, academia).
1. People who were against the refugee's were racist
2. People who were for Brexit were racist
3. People who voted for Trump are racist
Considering that the outcome of brexit is statistically known, a majority of people voted to get out.
How is it even possible for the media to be so heavily slanted (by vast majority) to be against Brexit?
If the media was impartial, or at least consisted of a balanced slice of people as the common society, we should have at least expected the coverage to be close to 50/50 for/against brexit.
History has shown us time and again, that when the rich and affluent live in their own isolated cultural group's and start to abuse the less well off, class conflict erupts.
Brexit was an alarming phenomenon, that a majority of people can be slandered by the media wholesale as being implied to be 'racists' or 'white supremacists' is unthinkable, and yet it has become common.
I consider now the media to be a far greater danger to society because they can abuse more then half a nation without consequence.
For what it's worth, the media can't cause a lot of actual harm to us. The media can't pass laws to hurt anybody; its only power is speech. Calling somebody a racist can be crude and insulting and wrong, but other people's words can't break our legs or pick our pockets.
Not every country in the West actually promotes Freedom of Speech, not even in their constitution.
The media has institutional power, they can effectively create a smear campaign and you will most likely lose your job at best, and jailed at worse.
I rely on my local newspaper to keep me up to date with what's going on in my home town but I have enough local knowledge to sort the wheat from the chaff.
However, as the distance between the news sources and my home town increases, my critical perception diminishes and I have to rely more and more heavily on the accuracy and impartiality of the news source. Which is why the only countries that I feel qualified to voice an opinion about are those in which I've lived and worked - and equally when I want an opinion about countries other than those I ask someone I know personally or go to a reputable and verifiable source (definitely not social media).
For instance, last year people took footage of a guy driving around in his company vehicle screaming racial epitaphs at black people. He wasn't officially punished by the State (even though he was harassing innocent people). But his company sure as hell canned his ass when it went viral. I doubt anyone would argue his rights got violated. Indeed, since the State DOESN'T dish out punishment for speech, the fact that society itself does is the only reason we can have a modicum of a civil society.
Again, this only speaks for the US. I would imagine some countries in Europe (especially Germany and Austria) may have certain things that are not permissible to say. It would be fairly obvious why. We've seen how rampant hate speech can devolve into genocide.
Some UK lawmakers are calling for probes to see if the Putin regime interfered in that referendum as well.
However there existed an assumption That the Press was fully separate from the Government.
Much of US media organisations work in tandem with existing ruling Government political parties., it is well known that CNN is more often then not a propaganda piece for the Democratic party, as well as other media channels. We have actual hard evidence of this from Wiki-leaks.
When the Democrat Party wished to characterise Trump supporters as 'Deplorables' (in the words of Hillary Clinton herself') and the Democratically aligned media organizations Also portray Donald Trump supporters as Racist and in particular often attack any figure speaking in support of Donald Trump as a 'racist'.
This is in fact a clear violation and subversion of the 1st Amendment, because The Government is using their Media Arm to attack those who speak publicly in support of Donald Trump.
There are many ways in which the Government can oppress a person to silence them, without simply throwing them in jail.
I don't know where the media is being used as an arm to attack Trump voters. It seems all I ever see on channels like CNN is panels about how Trump voters are feeling about the protests, and how liberals need to understand them more. The idea that Hillary Clinton had a "media arm" working in her favor is laughable. I can't think of a single politician who has ever had more media scrutiny directed at them than Hillary Clinton. And even IF an channel like CNN was in the pocket of a politician (like FOX is with Trump, or any Republican), that isn't a violation of anyone's free speech. The argument you are making is a philosophical one, it carries no actual weight in legality.
So the 1st Amendment in America has been violated many many times.
Much of the media organizations are an arm of the Democrat party.
Are you even aware that a vast number of media personnel get their position Through favors, donations and ties to Democrat politicians?.
You might want to take a look at George Stephanopoulos who is the Chief Anchor and the Chief Political Correspondent for ABC News, who worked on Bill Clinton's campaign as their Communications Director and White House Communications Director, and made donations to the Clinton Foundation.
For even more disturbing ties, you might want to look at the President of news Organisations such as CBS and see how they are literally married or directly related to high Obama personnel.
You may also want to take a look at Wiki-leaks revealing of the close ties with the Democrat party,To the point CNN rigged the election debates against Bernie Sanders by giving Hillary Clinton the questions in advance.
It's interesting you say Clinton doesn't have a media arm, when we have hard evidence for it.
I laugh at the claim 'Hillary Clinton has had more media scrutiny then anyone' since that is actually a line from the Democrat party in defense of Hillary Clinton, i also laugh at this because Hillary Clinton has broken crimes greater then most people and she isn't in jail.
You might want to take a look at how her compromise of national security didn't involve jail time, when anyone who actually does that in the Military does go to Jail.
Finally on the topic of CNN portraying or implying Trump supporters as 'racists', its interesting you haven't seen that, when Van Jones himself TELLS a family of Trump supporters that a common line about Trump supporters is that they are racist.
There is ample evidence of jailing of people for 'hate speech' in Europe, such as Dieudonné.
Try and keep it together.