Skip to main content

Nobody had to tell me... Long ago I determined that MSNBC was basically an insidious tool of the corporate media conglomerate, and therefore, I don't watch them anymore (unless I'm doing research on propaganda).

The "formula" I noticed was pretty straightforward... Push the outrage buttons of its liberal audience, present most issues in a hyper-partisan fashion, break some "important" story once in a while, but do it all within certain parameters, within certain framework that does not upset the interests of its corporate owners, which by the way are the same interests of all mega-media conglomerates.  Basically what I'm talking about is a FRONT, an impostor.

But to see them be it outed as hypocrites for all to see, that is priceless.  Salon has been reporting on a story that shines a light on why corporate media conglomerates are so damaging to a free press: Ed Schultz doubles down: “I am not gonna get bamboozled by reporters”

It has to do with a story about "NBC Universal-owned Peacock Productions, where a unionization vote covering about a hundred workers was held but a corporate legal challenge has kept the ballots from being counted."

Friday afternoon, Schultz’s first call came from In These Times labor reporter Mike Elk. After a testy exchange over who had instigated the call, Elk asked Schultz, “Do you or do you not support the workers organizing in the Peacock unit?

I support collective bargaining everywhere,” answered Schultz. Elk then said that while himself had appeared on MSNBC, he was “not afraid” to explicitly express support for the Peacock workers’ campaign, and “I think anyone that really wants to risk their neck for labor will say it, and you’re kind of evading the question now.” Schultz again answered, “I support collective bargaining everywhere,” again not mentioning Peacock Productions or the allegations there.

Elk next asked Schultz why he would invoke “class envy” in criticizing me for my story and former Salon columnist David Sirota for his criticisms following it. When Elk noted that most journalists covering labor make less than Schultz, Schultz shot back, “Why’d you bring up money? Why’d you bring money?” He noted his “long-running feud with David Sirota.”

The emphasis is mine

That is the questions, isn't it?  "Why would you have to bring up money?"  That's what corporate union busters ask hard-working people all over the country!  STFU, do your job, and don't "bring up money" into the discussion.

What a shame!  Ed, all you had to say is "I fully support the unionization drive at Peacock Productions."  How hard is that?

And what about the other "Liberal" hosts?

Schultz has drawn harsh tweets since Salon printed a Thursday morning story about labor strife at the NBC Universal-owned Peacock Productions, where a unionization vote covering about a hundred workers was held but a corporate legal challenge has kept the ballots from being counted. Alleging “a textbook anti-union campaign that you would see at companies like Wal-Mart,” the Writers Guild of America – East has asked five primetime MSNBC hosts to publicly support the campaign. None so far have, though several people who were in the room told Salon that Chris Hayes held a private meeting with workers and union staff. Asked Tuesday about the campaign, Schultz e-mailed Salon, “Moveon.org has never been an ally of Ed Schultz, why should I help you with a story? Give me a reason.” He did not respond to a follow-up, or to a series of subsequent inquiries.
The emphasis is mine

Classic! When it comes down to it, they are all just shilling for the corporate owners.  So much for independent journalistic principles.  But there you have it.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  If you work for a corporation... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Puddytat

    ...you have to tow the line.  This hardly matters for most people who work for corporations, but for people employed to spout progressivism (few as they are, maybe fortunately), it matters a lot and it never ends well.

    It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

    by Rich in PA on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 03:23:31 PM PST

  •  Not surprising at all. (9+ / 0-)

    A little over a year ago, a caller to his radio show complained that Schultz wasn't "fighting hard enough for Obama."  Schultz angrily responded that he, Schultz, is the biggest water carrier for Obama than anyone else.

  •  This is pretty funny (not) (3+ / 0-)
    “Moveon.org has never been an ally of Ed Schultz, why should I help you with a story? Give me a reason.”
    A caller will call into his radio show, Ed has no idea whether the caller supports Ed or not, but if Ed "likes" what the caller is saying, oftentimes Ed asks the caller to hold so the call screener (or producer of the show) can get their information in order to gather more information to use it  on the MSNBC show later that night, or even have the caller on as a guest.
  •  To me it was kind of like quiting drinking soda (4+ / 0-)

    pop.  It didn't really bother me, still doesn't, and did me a heck of a lot of good.  Plus, when you go back and drink some after you've quit, it tastes way too sweet and full of gunk.  

    "It is easier to pass through the eye of a needle then it is to be an honest politician."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 03:42:04 PM PST

  •  I think you left one aspect out. (6+ / 0-)

    When news went from being a public service to having to make a profit to survive a decision was made to avoid upsetting corporate sponsors/advertisors.

    Add what you show here to that and the pathetic need to avoid any complaints of bias and you get the sad state of afairs in journalsim that we have today.

    Most of the people taking a hard line against us are firmly convinced that they are the last defenders of civilization... The last stronghold of mother, God, home and apple pie and they're full of shit! David Crosby, Journey Thru the Past.

    by Mike S on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 03:51:14 PM PST

  •  is television journalism really that when FNC is (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CanisMaximus

    credentialed at the White House

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

    by annieli on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 04:15:57 PM PST

    •  I remember such quaint notions... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annieli, Maverick80229

      ...as "objective reportage." Opinions are like... well... you know... and they're everywhere these days.

      My dad was a "newsman" (as he always called himself) and would be shocked if he were around.

      Not the same country he defended in WWII.

      "Wealthy the Spirit which knows its own flight. Stealthy the Hunter who slays his own fright. Blessed is the Traveler who journeys the length of the Light."

      by CanisMaximus on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 04:29:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  quit picking on Ed (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    irate, Ian S, aliasalias, awcomeon

    You don't bite the hand that feeds you. Can't expect him to go up against the people who sign his paycheck. All hosts are the same, you tow the corporate line if  you want the big contract.
    No different with Rachael Maddow, sponsored by Exxon.

    •  I agree... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      awcomeon

      Ed probably went as far as he could with his repeated statement of support for collective bargaining. I doubt you'd have many others in the corporate media going even that far. I don't believe we should let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

      Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

      by Ian S on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 05:11:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Left wing circular firing squad (6+ / 0-)

    Out of all the fights that need to be waged by progressives this is not one of them.  MSNBC's legal obstruction to the union organizing should be vigorously challenged -- in court if necessary.  Dragging MSNBC hosts into a squabble that they did not create (and have little power to change) is just another left wing circular firing squad.  It's the same kind of tactic that destroyed much of the progressive movement in the 60s and 70s (enabled by J. Edgar Hoover's COINTELPRO operations).  Who does Ray Pensador work for, anyway, and what is his background?

    •  You're barking up the wrong tree implying Ray (4+ / 0-)

      "works" for some nefarious aim or organization and this comes from somebody who doesn't necessarily agree with him all the time. He has a consistent perspective when it comes to laying out his assessment of the mainstream media.

    •  I disagree ctoal53 (0+ / 0-)

      Of all progressive fights, building unions is not a "squabble." Progressives need to wage these fights.

      It wasn't Brother Ray who called out Ed Schultz, it was Mike Elk, a veteran labor reporter.

      “The answer must be, I think, that beauty and grace are performed whether or not we will or sense them. The least we can do is try to be there.” ― Annie Dillard, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek

      by 6412093 on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 07:48:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  There's really no point in going there (3+ / 0-)

      There are far too many employing the "Who's an agent?" ploy as it is.

      Unprovable and therefore pointlessly destructive.

      Nothing human is alien to me.

      by WB Reeves on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 09:31:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  So you've been here since 2006, have zero diaries (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mkor7

      written, one post, level 2 Mojo, and show up in my diary making an inflammatory and blunt insinuation/accusation that usually garners HR's if anybody else does it... And then get five recs?

      That is kind of strange.

    •  I was with you until the last two sentences (4+ / 0-)

      I think you're absolutely right about another circular firing squad, but I don't think the questioning of motives is at all productive.  There are plenty of people on the left who genuinely value progressive purity over virtually everything else, and who would love to see all of the liberal hosts on MSNBC publicly criticize MSNBC and get fired for it than see those hosts advance progressive goals within the limits that they can, given who signs their paychecks.  Like you, I personally have limited patience with that kind of thinking, but I have no doubt that it's genuine in the vast majority of cases, including this one.

      Bin Laden is dead. GM and Chrysler are alive.

      by leevank on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 03:54:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  MSNBC makes politics passive. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Pensador, jayden

    A form of entertainment rather than a productive way of changing something. How often do they tell people a useful way to impact an issue?

  •  ED (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Via Chicago, Z51Xfire

    I'm sure that Ed has done a million times more for the working man than the author (Pensador). Ed routinely interviews national union leaders. Who else does this?

  •  One point (5+ / 0-)

    It's more than likely that Schultz is under a contractual obligation  to not publicly criticize MSNBC. If so, he'd be breaking his contract if he did; essentially firing himself. The same is probably true for the rest of the MSNBC hosts.

    So we must ask ourselves: Is his refusal do so beyond a general endorsement of collective bargaining proof of anything beyond his sense of self preservation? Is this something he should be willing to lose his job over? Do we really require the mass unemployment of the entire MSNBC lineup in order to prove how down with the struggle they are?

    As an aside, how many here would be willing to do likewise?

    Moreover, one the oldest tricks in journalism is for lesser known journalists to get into a public squabble with those who have a higher profile. It's great exposure.

    To the extent that this brings attention to MSNBC's corporate malfeasance that's a positive. Not sure that this game of gotcha has much significance beyond that.

     

    Nothing human is alien to me.

    by WB Reeves on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 09:12:12 PM PST

    •  That sounds like a very strong apology for (0+ / 0-)

      the status quo.

      Regarding this:

      As an aside, how many here would be willing to do likewise?
      Answer: a man or woman of principles.

      The "sense of self-preservation" according to corrupt corporate ethos has engulfed our entire system and is the reason we're heading in the wrong direction.

      •  Apology for the status quo? (4+ / 0-)

        In what way? Seriously, where do you see a statement in support of the status quo?

        Are you really going to argue that anyone here who wouldn't sacrifice their job in a symbolic gesture is without principals?

        That was my question: how many here would be willing to do likewise?

         

        Nothing human is alien to me.

        by WB Reeves on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 11:24:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  So why didn't you quit your job ... (5+ / 0-)

        ... when the partner asked you to treat that "ethnic minority" differently?  There you were, presented with direct evidence that you were working for a morally corrupt company, run by corporate masters that ordered you to discriminate against others, yet you opted to continue shilling for the plutocrats after you issued your threat.  How is that not being an apologist for the status quo?  Did you change the company, or did the company just change the way it dealt with you?  There's a major difference between those outcomes, and my guess is that those duplicitous Neoliberal kleptocrats chose the latter option.

        By the logic being presented in this diary you should have packed up your belongings, gone to the authorities and presented your case, testified at the hearings, and let those scumbags pay the price for their moral failings.  But you didn't do that, using your "don't fuck with me voice" you told them not to tell you to do that ever again, and you stayed.

        Looking through the bent backed tulips, To see how the other half lives, Looking through a glass onion - John Lennon and Paul McCartney

        by Hey338Too on Fri Dec 13, 2013 at 11:33:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  So, you wouldn't consider, having given your (4+ / 0-)

        word on a contract, that it should stand for anything?

        One of the principles that I was raised by was "Don't make promises lightly; keep the ones you make." Whether it's a promise to a friend, or a contract with a client or employer, your ability and willingness to live up to your word to the extent that it is possible is one of the things that makes the difference between, in old-fashioned parlance, being a man (or woman) of honor, or not.

        What principles, pray tell, do you consider that a man or woman of principles really needs, and which do you consider silly because they conflict with your desired outcomes?

        At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

        by serendipityisabitch on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 12:31:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Asdf (3+ / 0-)

    I'm not quite sure I understand the diarist's complaint...

    Does not the word "everywhere" subsume NBC as well?

    The best way to tell a Democrat from a Republican is to present someone requiring food and shelter. The Democrat will want them housed and fed, even if they be faking need. The Republican will gladly see them starve until all doubt is removed.

    by GayIthacan on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 05:29:36 AM PST

    •  Of course it does! (3+ / 0-)

      I think the diarist's point is that Ed should have SPECIFICALLY criticized his bosses at NBC, and thereby probably have gotten himself fired.  Then he wouldn't be in a position to do anything to advance the progressive agenda, but at least he would be pure.

      Life seems so simple for some people on both the right and the left.  Unfortunately, in my experience, life isn't always so simple.  Sometimes you've got to pick your fights, and picking ones that you're pretty much guaranteed to lose is probably not the best way to go though life.

      Bin Laden is dead. GM and Chrysler are alive.

      by leevank on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 06:55:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm beginning to think the difference is between (6+ / 0-)

        the people who are actually out there fighting battles and the ones who fight them on the internet.  Those people out there fighting for progressive values learn pretty easily that you never get "the perfect" and that you can put a lot of hard work in just to get "the good".  It isn't compromising principles, as it is often described on the internet.  It's working with reality.  Progressive internet warriors don't have to deal with the reality that there is a huge group of people who don't have the same values and that will obstruct any real efforts toward progressive policy.  It's easy in the diarist's world to expect Ed to criticize his bosses, get fired and replaced with someone who won't mention collective bargaining at all.  Because he feels he has struck his blow for progressives everywhere just by calling Ed out. But real progressives, who want real progressive change just see that one more highly visible voice for collective bargaining disappears.  Making it even harder to convince people how important it is when they have the chance to make a difference.

        So I guess I differ about the left/right construct.  Internet lefties aren't true progressives in my opinion.  True progressives/lefties actually try to get progressive policy enacted.  Blowing up other progressives and tearing down imperfect progressive policy on the internet doesn't do anything to get progressive policy enacted.  So, while they may call themselves true left, they aren't.

        "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

        by stellaluna on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 07:59:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  seems like a variant of good old realo/fundi (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          stellaluna

          (not to be confused with "fundie").

          There is plenty of cheap talk on the internet, absolutely. But some people really do act as if they think principles matter more than consequences. And beyond that, there is lots of legitimate debate and uncertainty about how to fight for progressive values without being a "purity troll."

          But arguing about whether it's good enough for Ed Schultz to say, "I support collective bargaining everywhere"? Seems like that isn't even a tactical debate, it's just gossip.

          "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." -Susan from 29

          by HudsonValleyMark on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 08:53:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site