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?”The emphasis is mine
“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.”
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.