GREED BECAME GOOD! On the front page of the Washington Post, we learn of a change in the culture: // link // print // previous // next //
TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 2011
In which we request your support (for two ongoing projects): Keith Olbermann is back on the air, doing Countdown over at Current. The caption to this kick-off photo is designed to make you feel like one of the gang. Its intended to make you feel like you belong to the club.
Olbermanns return produced an intriguing report in yesterdays New York Times. Incredibly, Brian Stelter described a fight to sign journalistic contributors for competing liberal TV programs! Ten years ago, could anyone have imagined such a thing?
Just a guess: These liberal programs want contributors who will be highly regular. For that reason, a potential problem lurks in the highlighted facts:
At Current and at MSNBC, contributors have scored some extra swag due to this bidding war. Theres nothing automatically wrong with thatbut therein, a problem does lurk. Alas! The more money such contributors get paid, the less likely it is that they will ever stray off the political plantation. Lets think about MSNBC alone, although what follows also applies to the talent at Fox.
As Stelter notes, viewers of MSNBC come to recognize and expect regular guests with opinions on the left. The more those regular guests get paid, the less likely it is that they will challenge any twaddle on their own channel. This tendency has been quite clear for the past decade, especially on Fox.
The more such regular guests get paid, the higher the likelihood that they will be very regular in the things they do and say on the air. For one example, watch the performances by David Corn and Alex Wagner supporting Chris Matthews on Hardball last night. If its pure pre-packaged piffle you like, you got it in this worthless segment. (Full disclosure: We have never misjudged anyone the way we misjudged Brother Corn.)
Indeed, compensation can be quite good at the upper ends of the journalistic world. Like many other people, journalists may be disinclined to put such pay days at risk. They tend to fall in line with the programwhether the program is set by a CEO like Jack Welch or by producers who are constructing an easy-to-follow, corporatized version of paint-by-the-numbers liberalism.
Todays contributors and analysts can do quite wellif they get with the program. What the best way to lose that pay and exposure? Simple! Just challenge the work of the mainstream press; just challenge the established framework of your own cable channel. And that is why we approach you today, and all this week, asking you to consider making a contribution to this incomparable site.
Elsewhere, you may get a bought-and-paid-for brand of liberalism. You may get something else here.
Well be discussing the goals of our site each day this week. But for today, here are the basic goals for the coming year:
First, we plan to extend the history lessons in our on-line book, How he got there. The children of the career liberal world are telling this story very slowly, and with exceptional caution. (Poor Romney! And poor Pawlenty! Why wont the press corps be fair?) We think the remarkable history detailed in How he got there should be part of the public record. It should be available for future generations to use.
(Current liberals will never tell you the truth about the era in question. They have made their decision abundantly clear over the past fifteen years, dating back to their refusal to discuss the books by Gene Lyons and by Lyons and Joe Conason. They flushed these stories away long ago. Its obvious why they did so.)
Second, we plan to continue discussing the most intriguing topic in journalism todaythe development of the liberal journalistic world. When we started this site in 1998, there was very little liberal journalism anywhere in the land. Today, two cable networks are competing to sign up liberal contributors! The sputtering development of MSNBC strikes us as the most interesting story in journalism today.
A simpering form of pseudo-liberalism is relentlessly churned at that channel (though some good work is also done). In part for the reasons explained in Stelters piece, career liberals will never serve as honest brokers in critiquing that burgeoning world.
Lets review! Were going to give you recent history involving the work of the mainstream press. Beyond that, we plan to pursue the fascinating story of the burgeoning liberal journalistic world. Trust us: No one has asked us to serve as a regular liberal contributor. On those burgeoning liberal outlets, they like their contributions to be more regular than anything we would provide.
If you want an analysis from the outside, we hope youll consider contributing here. We wouldnt ask if there wasnt a need. Indeed: In our thirteen years at this post, this is only our second annual fund drive! You can contribute through PayPal, or by check. To do such things, just click here.
Thanks to Olbermanns return to the air, the regulars got some extra swag! If you want to see them sing for their supper, just watch that clip from last nights Hardball. Or watch the same program tonight! Except when penis photos emerge, this repurposed cable program is now extremely regular.
Is that what you want? Does that sort of scripted packaging serve progressive interests?
PART 1A CHANGE IN THE CULTURE (permalink): Gordon Gekko told no lies.
Over the course of the past fifty years, greed really did become good. On the front page of Sundays Washington Post, Peter Whoriskey described the wages of that change in our American culture.
What occurred when greed became good? As he started, Whoriskey described the life of a little-known CEO in the 1970s:
Say what? Douglas sometimes turned down raises? Later, Whoriskey offers more recollections from the age when CEOs would reject pay hikes. But first, he described the life of Douglas present-day counterpart as CEO of Dean Foods.
CEO Douglas had it good back in the 1970s. He was paid the equivalent of $1 million per year. (Well let Whoriskey use the word earned.) He drove a Cadillac when we went to the club; he lived in an upscale Chicago suburb. But Douglas was living the life of Ralph Kramden as compared to the lucky ducky who holds his post today:
Even after adjusting for inflation, CEO Engles is paid ten times as much as his predecessor. He lives in a $6 million Dallas cribunless he has jetted to Vail.
For the record, Whoriskey describes no instance in which Engles ever turned down a raise.
CEO life-style has soared at Dean Foods in the past forty years. Before long, Whoriskey describes what has happened to the pay of the companys workersand he quotes the son of the former CEO, commenting on the change in the corporate culture:
The late CEO Douglas cant speak for himself; his son thinks he would have disapproved of this change in the corporate culture. But in that passage, Whoriskey describes a national trend that is captured in the anecdotes from Dean Foods:
After adjusting for inflation, executive compensation has roughly quadrupled even as pay for 90 percent of America has stalled.
Whoriskeys long, detailed report is built upon research by three economists (Bakija, Cole and Heim). Whoriskey isnt the first journalist to describe the results of that researchbut his report is quite clear, and it appeared on the front page of a major Sunday newspaper. Whoriskey is describing a change in American culture. This change took place in the past fifty years, during which time greed became good.
That change in our American culture has affected the whole business world; almost surely, it has lessened the pay of most people who work within it. But a culture of massive over-compensation affects the world of journalism too. This helps explain the tons of crap currently getting shoveled to liberalsto liberals who may not see the way theyre played by the hustlers of the earth.
Has greed become good in the journalistic world too? Even among fiery liberals?
Tomorrow: A photograph of a large house