by Chris Powell, Gold Seek:
Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:
From GATA’s point of view the problem with mainstream Western news organizations isn’t so much “fake news” as suppressed news.
Since the selection of every serious news story is essentially a political act, heavily influenced by the opinions of its writers and editors, news is not arithmetic. It always will be whatever writers, editors, readers, listeners, and viewers think it is. But at least “fake” news or news presented in a misleading way invites disputation.
As much as The New York Times delights in making President Trump look bad (often enjoying the president’s help), at least the newspaper’s readers know from the Times itself and from other news organizations that the president questions the newspaper’s credibility.
Not so with international currency issues as reported by the Times.
Yesterday the Times published a long essay of analysis by Peter S. Goodman headlined “The Dollar Is Still King. How (in the World) Did That Happen?”:
Explaining the dollar’s persistence, the essay made no mention of surreptitious intervention in the currency and commodity markets by the U.S. government and its brokers. So your secretary/treasurer attempted to raise that point in the essay’s comments section. With about five comments already posted on the essay, your secretary/treasurer submitted this:
“Maybe the biggest reason the dollar is still king is that the U.S. government surreptitiously intervenes in the currency and commodity markets and that while documentation of this is available to those who want to look for it — http://www.gata.org/node/14839 — and often has been provided to The New York Times, neither the Times nor other mainstream news organizations will report it, considering it too sensitive politically.”
Over the next 24 hours the Times posted more than 170 comments on the essay before commenting was terminated, but your secretary/treasurer’s comment was not approved, though it was shorter than nearly all the comments approved by the newspaper, was submitted before nearly all of them, contained no offensive language, and was as relevant as many approved comments. Check for yourself.
“Too sensitive politically”?
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Today the Times’ comment section on Goodman’s essay invites submission of letters to the editor in response. The invitation will be accepted, if only as a matter of form to earn another Q.E.D.
Also indicating this week the prohibited nature of the subject of gold market manipulation was correspondence received by your secretary/treasurer from an Asian central bank to which your secretary/treasurer sought to make a presentation during a visit to Asia next month. The central bank is that of a country that, while rich in gold, other minerals, and commodities, is struggling. It is another rich country insisting on being poor.
An official of the central bank replied, acknowledging the request, which was nice, but only to deny it, explaining that the central bank “does not transact directly with private individuals/corporations but with authorized counterparties only, such as banks and financial institutions which have been duly accredited upon compliance with certain requirements.”
This was just too obtuse. Your secretary/treasurer wrote back that he did not want to “transact” anything with the central bank but simply to try to show it how its country was being cheated in the currency markets. Your secretary/treasurer continued: Would the central bank really refuse to consider such evidence unless it came from an “authorized counterparty”? And suppose someone other than an “authorized counterparty” told the central banker that his fly was open — would he really refuse even to glance discreetly below?