A friend of mine from high school days is a retired engineer from General Motors. He sent me this yesterday: For Delphi’s former salaried workers, retirement has been a long fight for fair treatment.
Some retirees lost homes, others considered suicide. Some people put off expensive medical treatment and died.
At least one retiree initially saw his monthly payment cut to the point where he gave up the benefit his wife would receive when he died, so they could receive a larger monthly check to pay the bills — only to leave her with nothing when he did die some years later.
“Now she’s left with nothing … for all those decades of service,” said Gump. “Only because he committed the unforgivable sin of not being in a union.”
Keep in mind that GM was bailed out by the taxpayers and GM CEO Barra’s pay rose to $23.7 million in 2020.
I’m a bit of a news junkie. I watch MSNBC, CNN, and yes even a few minutes of Fox each morning.
I’ve not seen any coverage of this by the “Liberal” Media.
Pro Tip: The Media is NOT Liberal…in matters of wages for the working class.
The bigger problem I see, is not that “the right” thinks that the medial is liberal, and therefor something to be suspicious of, but that “the left” believes the media is liberal and they are getting a true report of what is happening in the world.
The bigger problem that I see is that an increasing number of people on both the left and the right are unable or unwilling to face actual facts that challenge their existing beliefs.
Anti-vaccination sentiment did not begin with the right. Genetic modification has been practiced on food for at least several thousand years.
Magical thinking and confirmation bias are rampant throughout our culture.
Anybody who desires a true report of what is happening in the world will find little or nothing of value on either MSNBC or CNN from at least 9:00p until at least 2:00.
Each network fills its air time with opinion pieces of various designated men and women. Whatever actual reporting intrudes is provided only to supplement and support whatever diatribe is scripted for the evening’s performances.
The formula for hour on each network seems to be the same — a fifteen to twenty minute opening segment comprised of an opening dialog by the host, a Greek chorus of several sycophants to reinforce that monolog, a commercial break, then shorter and shorter “follow-up” segments separated by longer and longer commercial breaks. These segments are frequently book promotions (always promoting a strictly-observant left-leaning viewpoint) and self-promotions of upcoming network events. MSBNC in particular retains an ensemble of about a half-dozen regulars who appear several times a week — generally reporters or opinion writers with the Washington Post or New York Times.
I’ve timed several episodes of Lawrence O’Donnell (MSNBC, 10-11), Brian Williams (MSNBC, 11-12p), and Don Lemon (CNN 11-12p). The total time dedicated to commercials (not counted the embedded advertising) is always at least 15 minutes per hour and sometimes as much as 25 minutes per hour.
Whatever it is the MSNBC and CNN present on weekday prime time, it most certainly is not “news” in any journalistic sense of the word.
Rachel Maddow is usually better in my experience. She has longer segments and genuinely cares about being correct rather than being sucked up to.
I stopped watching Ms. Maddow when the pandemic broke out. I still catch parts of her show when it is repeated from 12:00a to 1:00a each evening (after the Brian Williams hour).
The formula that Ms. Maddow uses that drives me crazy is that her opening monolog will focus on some particular topic, and she’ll find a written quote — such as a tweet or transcript. She’ll put the text on the screen. Then she’ll read it, line by line. After each line, she’ll tell us what the line said. Then she’ll tell us what the line meant. Then she’ll read the next line and repeat. When she gets to the end of the quote, she’ll tell us what the quote said — often repeating verbatim the text that she’s just finished reading several times over. Then she’ll tell us what the quote meant. Then she’ll lift a key phrase, raise her eyebrow, then say “Really?”
Then she’ll read it again.
All this gets her to about the 15 minute mark, and by this time I’m exhausted. Many times I’ve already seen and heard the chosen quote earlier that day. I’m always able to read it myself in the few seconds it takes for her to read the first line. I assume the purpose of this to make it easy for latecomers and channel-hoppers to catch the purpose of the evening’s bit. I just don’t have the patience for it.
The repetition is exhausting. Since the pandemic began, she dropped essentially all other topics, except whatever horror Donald Trump committed that day. There were and are many aspects of the pandemic that desperately needed elaboration and explanation, especially while the prior administration was spreading explicit misinformation. In spite of her relentless focus on the pandemic, Ms. Maddow shed precious little light on what was actually happening.
Ms. Maddow relentlessly promotes her own publications and appearances, and — I think more than any other of the prime time faces on either CNN or MSNBC — chooses guests who are promoting a book or speaking tour. This aspect is lifted right out of the Johnny Carson show. In the same way that an appearance on Johnny Carson was part of every celebrity tell-all launch, an appearance on Rachel Maddow is part of every liberal book launch.
I recognized and respect her desire to be correct. I’m weary of her repetition and her clear agenda. These are one-hour opinion columns, and nothing else.
One thing that I miss, on all of the MSNBC and CNN primetime shows, is even a perfunctory appearance of any dissenting views. CNN — especially Jake Tapper — decided that the Afghanistan exit was a “disaster” within what seemed like minutes. That has been the CNN party line ever since.
That’s not news, it’s propaganda.
Thanks for explaining my recent boredom with MSNBC, Maddow in particular but not the only “talking head” that I can often predict, almost word for word, what story they are going to cover. There’s no news there, despite their ever-present banner of “Breaking News” on each story.
They are as predictable, in their own way, as Fox News.
On Fox each morning, there is a story about the border, a murdered or injured police office in a minority neighborhood, suspicions about the virus originating in a lab, and a retired military officer commenting about Afghanistan.
On MSNBC, there’s a story about the Texas abortion decision, voting rights, Covid deniers, and something related to Trump.
On either channel, I will learn virtually nothing new. Both have distilled down to cheerleaders for their viewers to shout down the other side.
Yes, of course, I prefer MSNBC/CNN as they do have a tiny bit of news now and then and yes, FOX is hideous, but both are boring and predictable.
Though this takes some getting used to, I often like that she digs way back in history to make a relevant connection. I’ve also long felt she is the best actual journalist of the primetime lineup.
I agree. Like a relatively long list of excellent writers, I think she needs a much more assertive editor.
Rumor has it that she is planning a reasonably dramatic change in career beginning early next year. She’s said that she is weary of doing a nightly one-hour show.
I will very much enjoy a weekly or monthly fifteen minute piece from Ms. Maddow.
When I was on the other side of the aisle and used to listen to Jay Severin, he was on some MSNBC program with a few other commentators that ran for a few episodes. I can’t recall the name of the program. In any case, that was the first time I saw Maddow and even as a right winger, I saw how bright and talented she was. I recall when she got picked for her own program how angry Severin was about it, claiming that she got the gig instead of him because of PC policies. Even then, I remember talking back to my radio saying, “No Jay, she’s just a lot better than you.”
At one time, Keith Obermann was my go-to guy on MSNBC. I was miffed when he and the network parted ways, and wondered how he would ever be replaced.
I was very pleasantly surprised as I got to know Rachel Maddow — who effectively replaced him.
She’s very good. I really liked Lawrence O’Donnell at one time, and I’ve grown to like Brian Williams after him. I think the format of the MSNBC primetime lineup has become tired and tiresome.
I want more diversity of views, and I’m just not willing to swim in the cesspool of Fox. I also don’t want to in any way contribute to its success.
In a much earlier age, I enjoyed Crossfire on CNN. Although it, too, degenerated into a nightly shouting match, I found it fresh and interesting for awhile.
I suspect that enough of the mainstream news audience is similarly disaffected that perhaps we’ll see something better emerge.
Olbermann and Maddow were the original liberal bloc before MSNBC decided to brand the whole network that way. I believe Maddow began as a substitute host for Olbermann and it was he who recommended to the network that she get her own show.
I too had read that she was looking to change direction when her contract expires. I could see her doing podcasts. She did a great series about Spiro Agnew called Bagman a while back.
Media corporations are, surprise, surprise – CORPORATIONS!!!! Their business model is to sell your attention to advertisers. Their hustle to do it is “news,” which changes definition according to the ratings. To expect them to advance any idea which might, just might put corporations in a bad position is silly.
Besides, it’s all entertainment now anyway.
I’ve come to the conclusion that politics in USAmerica is run by two private corporations, the Democrats and Republicans, who conspire with media corporations and corporate consultants churning billion$$$ through the media meat grinder and dazzle machine to distract the public from the fact that their pockets are being picked and the Treasury is being robbed.
While I share your cynicism, it may still be instructive to understand what is different between today and in prior periods — say 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010.
It isn’t clear that “the Treasury is being robbed”. Paul Krugman argues to the contrary — if by “the Treasury” you mean the overall assets available to the US government. The ratio of the federal debt to the GDP is will within historical bounds — especially when compared to other periods of overall economic stress (such as just before and during WWII). It should be noted that “federal debt” is a very misleading term because it leads to inferences that — for example — it must be repaid. Unlike household debt, the federal debt is a very arbitrary number. The US incurred an enormous (in comparison to the GDP) federal debt during WWII. That was “paid” by year-to-year growth in the GDP. The annual federal deficit is similarly misleading — it is an artifact of which “bins” certain moneys are accumulated in during the course of day-to-day economic activity.
SOMETHING is very different today than it was even ten years ago. Various players, including — but certainly not limited to — corporations have learned how make very effective use of current communication technologies to manipulate public opinion, infect the public with torrents of utterly false misinformation, and similar abuses.
Many of our assumptions about “free” speech, freedom of expression, and similar constitutional rights are grounded in assumptions about technology that are entirely false today. We have long understood that yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is NOT an expression of free speech. We have yet to appreciate that broadcasting lies about critically important scientific fact amounts to the same thing.
Newspapers have always been corporations, some of them enormously powerful and wealthy. Somehow the “fourth estate” in earlier times was more successful at limiting government abuse than it is today.
Broadcast news has always been entertainment. I was dumbfounded when I first moved to the Boston area in 1974 because the nightly “news” was nothing more than fires, car crashes, and assorted trivia about various professional sports organizations. The primary difference I perceive today is that the commercial breaks are longer and “coverage” is even more sentimental and content-free.
A typical news piece in 1974 might be about a tragic fire that killed three children. The typical evening news report of that tragedy was never complete without a reporter sticking a microphone in front of a distraught parent — on camera — and saying “How do you feel right now?”. That’s entertaining for some, I guess.
I think it’s important that we understand what we need to change about our regulatory environment and our culture so that there is more actual information, much less outright lies, and more effective curation of whatever information is published.
I think it is also a grave error to focus only on the media while ignoring its audience. One of the ironies of today’s world is that in a time when humanity has unparalleled often real-time access to astounding volumes of information, the American public is more ignorant, more illiterate, more superstitious, and more gullible than it has ever been.
What you call cynicism I believe to be realism. Media corporations are indeed CORPORATIONS and seem to serve their own interests more often than the public’s, at least these days.
As for the Treasury not being robbed, where’s the audit of the Afghanistan war? And where is the fair share of taxes owed by the billionaire class?
Yes, please blame the flock for following the Judas goat.