Are mainstream media conspiring against unions?

[merrily]

As you all know, unions are among the strongest supporters of the Democratic Party, in both donations and person power. But this past Sunday alone, I saw on TV two pot shots against unions.

The first was in the MTP (NBC) interview of Senator Sanders by Chuck Toad. Perhaps less noticed than other things in that interview was Toad's attempt to get Sanders to disavow union support.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5534145

Shortly before I watched that video yesterday, I had watched an interview of Seth Moulton, who defeated long time U.S. Rep. Tierney (D. MA) in a Democratic primary. The Moulton interview was on a Boston station (same one that employed Scott Brown's wife before he ran for Kennedy's seat) that is an ABC affiliate. The hosts of that show also tried to get Moulton to discredit union donations and support.

Was that sheer coincidence, or is there a concerted effort to shame Democrats about accepting money and help from unions?

If so, how do they justify that in the wake of Citizens' United? It's okay for billionaires, American and not American, to spend whatever to buy elections and politicians, but not okay for US workers and their unions?

If it is some kind of concerted effort by the msm, I hope Dem candidates get some piercing answers ready.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. "mainstream media" is owned by and operates for the benefit of the corporate elites.

[Sherman A1]

2. Precisely

[merrily]

3. I just got a very similar comment in the Labor forum. My reply was:

Yes, but that has been the case for a long time. I think this is new.

Twice in one hour, two different networks, one national program, one a local affiliate, trying to shame Dems over union donations and other support.

That was striking to me (no pun intended).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1117&pid=5630

[randys1]

51. And the absolute certain sign of the beginning of the end for the american worker.

Long haul semi truck will drive itself.

Cabs will be driven by robotic cars.

Customer service people for any and all services or products will either be entirely outsourced to other countries and soon after that automated with computer based service reps.

Pretty much all manufacturing of all products is already outsource and soon almost all of it will be done by robots.

Even if we had a completely liberal government, unions galore, WHAT are WE going to DO?

And there are more and more people everyday and in a global economy it matters to us here how many people are out of work in China and India etc.

Now there IS enough wealth and food for everybody, you could create "make work", like Thom Hartmann reminds us the government in the past here in the US would employ one guy to dig a hole and another guy to fill it back in. But this takes will, and if 90% of the resources are in the hands of 1% of the people, why would they give that up?



Think about this SIX people, SIX human beings, who between them have never worked one minute of their lives, control and have and own the same amount of wealth as ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY MILLION AMERICANS.

How are we STILL allowing this?

[merrily]

53. Well, I am ready to die for the cause, but not to die for

stupidly and for no reason whatever. I just don't think there are enough people like me to avoid the "stupidly and for no reason" part.

If there are, organizing them would take time and money and effort. People with day jobs don't have tons of any of those. It would also take a way to keep it out of the attention of the NSA.

And, first, the police and maybe the military, would have to be on our side--and a lot of effort has been put into both those groups to avoid that result. (The revolutions in Russia failed until the Russian military joined them, so the right went all over the military and the cops, like red on blood.)

So, that' is how we allow it. We don't have a lot of realistic choices. Sorry to be a downer, but I don't think they are going to give anything to us and I don't think the voting booth has been proving a good answer since LBJ and the Great Society.

[BlindTiresias]

60. Like I said

Migrate out if you can, there is no resistance here and there will be no resistance.

[merrily]

61. I get there will be no resistance.

But, I don't need to migrate, though I had considered the Pacific coast of Mexico for a time.

I am one of few willing to die for the cause of the 99%--and I truly am-- who also does not have to worry where my next meal is coming from.

I am not 1% by any stretch. Warren Buffet is worrying about me or my portfolio and Bill Gates is not asking me to donate to his foundation. But, I am not hungry or scared, either.

So, willing to die but not needing to migrate.

Did you migrate? (No need to answer unless you don't mind.)

[BlindTiresias]

66. I plan on it

Once I am out of school and maybe get a few more years of experience I am aiming on migrating out if things continue to degenerate. My ancestors are relatively recent immigrants and half of them got shit for being the wrong color, so I don't exactly have a great attachment to this country.

[BlindTiresias]

59. Leave the country

Entirely serious, if you have the ability to you should run away as quickly as you can. This country will never allow automation to benefit the people, they would rather see a handful of people live in opulence than let the population at large live in modest comfort.

Most of us are immigrants anyway or descended from immigrants only a generation or two ago, so consider it a gamble your granddad made and lost and move on. There is no shame in migrating out of future hellholes.

[randys1]

64. Automation wont benefit the people, exactly what I meant.

We do have the ability to take care of everyone and if we leave it up to middle class teaparty person the opposite will happen.

When teaparty person realizes this, it will be too late.

[BlindTiresias]

67. Yep

It is different elsewhere, while other countries have their own right wing resurgence most other places likely still have enough of a sense of community and shared identity to shape automation in a positive direction. I don't see that here, and I am certain that impulse has been entirely exterminated.

[randys1]

68. Even if we welcomed it, we could still care for our own if we had the will.

But the teaparty person is certain that poor people have too much and billionaires dont have enough.

And that if only the poor received less and were taught the hard lessons of life, all would be better.

I know, I know... almost makes you want to scream

[liberalmike27]

47. Wow

A friend of mine used to ask "Does a bear sh*t in the woods?" to questions like this one.

The MSM has been attacking unions like they were Jimmy Carter, who has also been unjustly demonized.

Of course, globalization was not passed under Bush, and they swept in and supported Clinton beginning that with NAFTA and CAFTA, which began some sincerely harsh exporting of manufacturing, and since most of the unions resided in manufacturing, goodbye unions, goodbye contribution to democrats. And it WAS the plan.

[merrily]

62. Then, with all due respect to your friend, your friend did not understand

the question, either. And probably did not read the thread, either. It is not about MSM attacking unions.

[Smarmie Doofus]

4. I'd be shocked if they weren't.

I'm not entirely sure about the word "conspiring". They don't have to conspire. It's no secret that gigantic media subsidiaries of even more gigantic megamonopolic corporate entities are hostile to organized labor.

Why wouldn't they be?

[merrily]

5. But a conspiracy is exactly what I am asking about, not the same old, same old.

So I had to use the word "conspiring."

I just posted the following in the Labor forum (Remind me never to cross post again.)"

My point is the possibility of a new, concerted, conscious decision among msm to shame Democrats about unions, not simply the usual and inevitable outcome of the 10% versus everyone else. As in, they actually talked to each other about this kind of anti-Dem, anti-union attack for 2014 and beyond--or Koch or someone talked to them.

[Eleanors38]

73. Essentially correct. MSM no longer has the free agency...

to act on its own; it is a declining (though still significant) element in the corporate state. The actions to "shame" (as you put it) Democrats has certainly gone as long as teachers' unions have been attacked, and broader efforts now represent consolidation efforts by the corporate state.

There really is no discernible opposition to the CS.

[merrily]

74. Thanks. I had linked to this thread in the labor group.

At least one person there thought I could be correct about specific, new, deliberate, concerted action, not just some vague "of course, msm fat cats are going to attack workers."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1117&pid=5646

I have not googled Lippman and Bernays yet, though.

[Eleanors38]

75. I have stated for some years, now, that the USA is

a corporate state, and that the only reasons that state has not fully realized its "potential" is due to lack of competency in its consolidation efforts (they have MSM, and frankly the Democratic Party, but are still flummoxed by social media, and even the faltering old-line internet); or it simply is not yet that interested in view of the present gravy train they own; or there is real debate between the statist-types and the I've-got-mine, why-should-I-help-your-outfit? types.

One thing is certain: They see a real threat in social dusruption stemming from economic dislocation, hence attacks on labor, hence militarization of LEOs (a traditionally crappy first line of defense when social disruption threatens).

When it hits the fan, the CS WILL seek gun bans.

[el_bryanto]

6. No, but yes

I don't like the word conspire because it implies that the media types all get together and plan out a strategy for dealing with the unions. I don't believe that happens. I don't even thing the owners of the networks do that. It is a competitive business, and I don't think they are working together to crush the unions really.

But, in another sense, most broadcasters and most editors identify with the corporate class. Particularly the national anchors and the show runners. They go to the same parties, their kids attend the same schools, and they, more than likely, grew up in the same surroundings as the big capitalists who hate unions. They generally haven't grown up working class and they don't identify with union members. They identify with the people crushing unions. So when they have corporate elites on their shows they accept the answers they are given. And when they have union leaders on their show they ask the piercing questions.

That's my take anyway.

Bryant

[Smarmie Doofus]

8. ^ There it is. n/t

[merrily]

12. I tried to address that in my OP and in every one of my replies so far on this thread.

I don't know how to convey "conspiracy" "new" and "specific" "not the same old, same old" any better than in those posts.

Whether you like the word conspiracy or not, as my Reply 5 says, I had to use it because that is exactly what I am asking about, not some general, age old class warfare via broadcaster scenario.

[el_bryanto]

14. Than no - I don't believe there to be a conspiracy.

And I don't like the word because, in my opinion, it inaccurately describes what's going on.

Bryant

[dotymed]

42. Conspiracy

any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
I think that it, by definition, is a conspiracy.
Whether you like it or not, anytime 2 or more people work towards a common goal (usually illegal or immoral) it is considered a conspiracy.
Our world and especially politics abound with conspiracies.

[el_bryanto]

43. That's kind of amusing

OK -

is a conspiracy "any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result?" That's the definition you give, right? So when me and my coworker are working together to produce a monthly report - we are conspiring to produce this monthly report?

Where does the "usually illegal or immoral" aspect of your definition come in?

The word conspiracy to me indicates some form of collusion - in this case the various news organizations are deciding together to report the news a certain way. Do you believe that to be the case? That there is a conference call or a memo or a private lunch meeting between the heads of MSNBC, Fox, CNN, the networks, the newspapers (who presumably have to sit in the back), and other news media outlets in which they have decided to go extra hard on unions?

Bryant

[dotymed]

71. Actually bryant,

That is not "my" definition. If you visit "dictionary.com" you will see that is their definition, verbatim. That includes the "usually illegal or immoral" aspect.
Actually, I believe that through common r.w. talking points that there is a collusion against Unions, whether it is agreed upon or not.
It is a part of their philosophy because it represses the majority and greatly benefits the wealthy, IMO.
And yes, when 2 or more people work together to produce something, they are conspiring.
The English language is always changing and etymology is an interesting subject.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

30. Think of it this way.

When one scam artist sees another scam artist pull off some graft, they say, 'Hey, I should be pulling that one too!'

You don't need the conspiracy for some new meme to start up and spread. Just a group of people with relatively the same worldview, who are more than happy to use the same sorts of attacks as soon as they see them used somewhere else.

[JHB]

72. This has been going on so long it was still current when I labeled it...

..."yuppie bias".

[Eleanors38]

76. A country of franchise culture doesn't need smoke-filled rooms.

If people en masse can jargon-jive the latest hep-cat crap by week's end, MSM can hear the strains of a toot by corporate as clearly as the ones from Kardashian's butt.

No memos needed. Not even a wink & nod.

[Octafish]

7. Here's the paperwork making it official...

The Lewis Powell Memo - Corporate Blueprint to Dominate Democracy

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/the-lewis-powell-memo-corporate-blueprint-to-/blog/36466/

More detail: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/

[merrily]

9. Thanks, Octafish. That is very useful.

Again, though, I am wondering about something new and specific.

Maybe my real point is, new or not, what can/should we do about it? What can/should unions do about it? What can/should Dem candidates do about it?

[Smarmie Doofus]

17. Not sure about unions but in the rare circumstance that you have an unapologetically ...

... pro labor candidate like Sanders on MTP the LAST thing I'd recommend ... if I were politically advising Sanders....would be to call out MTP while ON the show.

Not that it wouldn't be justified and feel great but the practical considerations ( Will he ever be back again? Probably not.) would be prohibitive.


You're bringing focus and attention to a real dilemma here.


Maybe he's doing the best he can, given the present circumstances: calling out the economic PTBs in the senate and elsewhere while avoiding head-on confrontation on the masters' media.

[merrily]

29. I thought Sanders was outstanding.

I am wondering about the lousy msm, though, both Chuck Toad and the hosts of the Massachusetts show.

Glad to bring focus to an important issue. Thanks for saying that. Makes me feel good.

[vi5]

10. Yes, but like all major issues...

If the Democrats listened to someone other than the media class and their beltway insider buddies, then it wouldn't matter and that wouldn't sway them.

But because that proves time and time again to be their major constituency and the group that more than anyone they are trying to please, their opinion and their attempts to shame get more sway in the end.

And the like other Democratic supporting groups, the party is more than happy to take the money. It's just getting them to actually do anything in support that's the problem.

[madokie]

11. Damn right it is

all our so called main stream media is owned by large corporations so yes they're trying to continue the busting of the unions that reagan started. You can bet on that being true as long as the corps own the news.

[merrily]

13. Thanks, I agree. But I am asking about something much more specific and newer than that.

I give up on trying to word it any differently than in the OP and every one of my replies on this thread.

The point is not that corporations own the msm and therefore they take the establishment line in general. I know that. We all know that.

[madokie]

19. What're you wanting to know then

Yes they are conspiring to do away with the unions as labor is one of their biggest cost and one that they feel they can have some control over, hence the destroying of the unions meme

The cost of raw materials is fixed as is the cost of production, electric, housing etc so the only way they can increase their take is, take our labor cost to them, from us

[merrily]

22. Thank you. As I posted to Cha, I thought my Sunday

experience was too big a coincidence to actually be a coincidence. I think maybe someone talked to someone and decided this was the election when they'd systematically shame Dems about union support.


That was the whole reason Citizens' United was supposed to be okay for everyone--it protects union donations as much as Adelson's donations. Union donations are what the SCOTUS has always cited in these cases. Now, they are trying to make union donations appear shameful. I hope to heaven Dems shame them right back.

[Cha]

15. Yes.

[merrily]

18. Thanks, Cha!

I'm not sure yet, but I thought the possibility was worth raising because it just seemed like too big a coincidence to actually be a coincidence.

We can at least be alert to the possibility of an actual conspiracy. If we see Democrat after Democrat being grilled about union money, we'll know for sure.

[raouldukelives]

16. Just the unions for the proles.

Once you start reaching upper incomes, they don't mind unions for those workers. Of course, they don't call them unions. They are usually associations. Like the AMA. But they provide the same protections as any unions for the little people hope to provide. Setting the price for labor being chief among those.
Until we start seeing an influx of H1B doctors to treat patients for pennies on the dollar we'll know they are still protected and rightly so by union power.

[merrily]

20. Excellent point.

I once had a doctor who, bless him, worked for very little, bristle when I included him in working class.

To me, if you have to work to pay for rent and food and to keep the lights on, you are working class. The other people can live off savings, investments or other assets and work is optional.

It's not about formal education.

Enough divide and conquer.

[Enthusiast]

21. Kicked and recommended!

Thank you, merrily.

[merrily]

24. Thanks and you're welcome.

[Orsino]

23. No. It's open warfare.

Always has been.

[merrily]

26. Thanks. I am not asking about "always," but rather whether there might be

something newer, more focused and more specific afoot.

I think I would have to observe more to decide for certain, but I thought my Sunday experience was a big enough coincidence to warrant at least a more heedful eye and ear.

[Orsino]

33. I think the answer is still always...

...but fueled by modern American gigabucks, largely unregulated and able to fund many, many different attacks on American families. Very focused and very specific, and too numerous to list here.

[merrily]

34. Thanks.

[NRaleighLiberal]

25. they are driving the message desired by their masters. Period.

Right wing, ultra wealthy, pushing it out to the sheeple.

[merrily]

27. I am not sure yet, one way or the other. Please see Reply 26.

[NRaleighLiberal]

28. I've not really believed a thing told to me by MSM for many many years.

doesn't matter what the topic is. Extreme skeptic here.

[merrily]

31. Could not agree more.

If we are conscious of this issue though, maybe the implication that unions are bad and Dems are bad for being supported by them won't seep in unconsciously.

If Koch inherited money is honorable in politics, then why in hell is an electrician's earned money spoken of as though it were tainted?

We have to fight this somehow, not sure how.

[NRaleighLiberal]

32. great point. thanks and Happy Monday!

[merrily]

35. Thank you; you're welcome and Happy Monday to you as well.

[Baitball Blogger]

36. Very possible.

My local paper has been known to withhold information on candidates because the info might turn the results of an election. The crooked incumbents they endorsed had already been indoctrinated to support a huge local and federal planning project. It was like a House of Cards. One goes down, they all go down. So the paper dummied up AND endorsed candidates who were involved in fraud and conspiracy.

So, yes. When we're looking for reasons why we're still living in poisoned communities, I would certainly add the media in that group of suspects.

[merrily]

38. Yes, media is very definitely part of our ills.

Their banging the war drums for Iraq (then and now) was quite striking, too.

Yet, people can watch a PBS special on how we were lied into war with media's help, grasp that, then fall for media shilling again. It's always somehow "different this time."

[mountain grammy]

37. Raising the minimum wage is very popular right now. People are restless

and speaking out. The unwashed masses, it turns out, are actually people, working Americans unable to live on what they earn. This is a ripe atmosphere for union organizing for working people and the corporate unions don't like that one bit. You bet there's a more concerted effort to bash unions. The anti union crap that's been crammed down our throats for the last 30+ years has taken it's toll. Judges have fulfilled the corporate dream of an oppressed and depressed workforce of "unskilled" labor that is akin to indentured servitude, too poor and demoralized to fight back. But, wait, who are those people out in the streets? and they have the support of the public? The corps can beat them up, and they do, but they keep coming.

[merrily]

39. Mountain grammy, I think you are on to something! Brilliant.

Increasing the minimum wage is a Dem midterm election strategy.

"Unions, bad. Workers bad. Minimum wage. Bad."

Never occurred to me. I think you nailed it.

[mountain grammy]

44. I've been involved in this fight for years..

My husband and I both had union jobs, the only reason we could retire comfortably. Both our sons have union jobs which allows them to live comfortably. We have all been active in our unions, which are typically very democratic organizations when people just get a little involved.
The union bashing has been relentless and it works. As a union steward, I had to contend not only with management, but with members of our own group who did management's dirty work, even as our pay and benefits were above the industry standards. They just didn't get it. A few years after I left, they decertified the union and, from what I hear, pay was frozen for 4 years. Guess that's what they wanted. Of course, they blamed the union.

[merrily]

46. Choir, here, Mountain Grammy.

Both my parents, ILGWU.

Me, AFL-CIO in NYC and, in Boston, a union I won't identify because that would give more info about me than I care to put on a board.

My job has not always made me eligible for union memberships because I've been management at times and also been self-employed at times. But any minute my job was eligible, I was not only a union member, but a very active member.

[rock]

40. "mainstream media" = super-rich

Yes.

[merrily]

41. Sunday was enough for me to get suspicious. I'll be keeping my eyes and ears open

for more evidence. But I really do think Mountain Grammy nailed it.

[KoKo]

45. The Business News Online (Bloomberg/CNBC) and in print is filled with

anti-union propaganda. Business leaders hate unions and the Chamber of Commerce, Koch, Milton Friedman's influence at Chicago School of Economics (spawning Alan Greenspan and others) has been at work for decades to bust them. Since FDR...the fight to get rid of workers rights has infested the Republican Party and now spilled over to the Democratic Party as it has moved to the right when the DLC decided to invite Big Business and & the Think Tanks who support Friedmanomics into the party and help do its bidding.

Union management helped it along with terrible mismanagement from the top...so they are partly to blame. And, as people did better they got lazy and didn't see when the jobs started to go offshore after NAFTA was enacted. The ILGWU ("Look for the Union Label" Campaign) tried their best. But, it was a losing proposition...as the jobs kept leaving to China. Textiles, Furniture, Mechanical Parts Manufacturing, Pharma...etc.

Thanks for the post.

[merrily]

48. Systematic (maybe systematic) shaming of Democratic candidates for being endorsed by

Last edited Mon Sep 15, 2014, 12:35 PM - Edit history (1)

unions and for accepting union donations seems to me to be a bit different than the usual anti-union, right to work tripe, though.

You are not going to destroy unions by pointing out they make political donations or endorse candidates, but you might help a Republican win if you quiz Dem candidates about getting those donations and endorsements, as though it were some kind of sleazy crime.

Now that I am thinking about this, Boston's relatively new Mayor was a union guy, as was his late dad. This same show asked him if he could really be fair to the city when negotiating salaries with city employee unions. See? The message is, if you are associated with unions, you are bound to fail the electorate if you get elected.

[KoKo]

49. Does sound like that's a tactic they are dragging out.

Maybe trying to equate accepting Union Money with those who take Koch and Chamber of Commerce money. A stupid push back by MSM/Business Interests figuring most average voters wouldn't know the difference in motivation/philosophy between a candidate who accepts Big Business Money or a candidate who accepts Money from Labor Unions which support American Workers?

[merrily]

50. If you put a wedge between Democrats and unions, it will be easier to beat both.

[oldandhappy]

52. The dark money is against unions

and the media cannot make it on their own -- have been pandering to the right. So the answer is 'yes' tho the media might not be aware of this as a specific decision. Seems clear to me.

[merrily]

54. If what I observed Sunday was not only coincidence, the media would have to be aware.

Someone had to tell Chuck Toad and/or his writers to try to get Bernie to distance himself from unions and try to make him look sleazy if he didn't distance himself. Ditto the talking heads on the Massachusetts station and/or their writers.

[oldandhappy]

69. Yep!

[librechik]

55. Guess who all the inflated Citizens United cash is paid to during campaigns--TV ADS

radio ads and newspaper ads. Who profits from unlimited money in campaigns? Lil Chuckie Todd and his mummy and daddy and all their friends in the media buiness, including defense industry tools.

[merrily]

56. Thing is, though, who bought more ads in 2008? Obama or McCain?

Union money buys ads, too.

If I am right, I think this is a strategy to shame Dems away from unions. That would lose Dems money and support and probably voters, and therefore elections.

Then Dems could not pass laws favorable to unions.

win win for the rich right

[librechik]

57. and most folks working in TV belong to a union

nevertheless, Owners call the shots and the unions are pretty weak, like everywhere. There has been a fuck unions attitude among the general population for decades. (seeded no doubt by conservative propaganda.) The Dems are as much a part of that as everybody else.

[merrily]

58. Isn't it amazing how much we say Republicans are dumb and evil while

Democrats are smart and well intentioned? Yet, we often also say that Democrats get taken in and/or outsmarted by Republican propaganda. And if they are not taken in or outsmarted, then they're scared of the Republicans or have less spine than Republicans and therefore "cave."

Double Think.

DC kabuki theater.

[hifiguy]

63. A conspiracy is supposed to be secret.

The media's bias against unions and other forms of legitimate citizen organizing is about as secret as the Mayor leading 10,000 Irishmen and a pipe band down Main Street on St. Patrick's day.

[merrily]

65. Please read the OP again.

The OP question is not whether there is media bias against unions and/or workers and/or Democrats.

I've posted again and again on this thread that I am not asking that. I am a little insulted that anyone thinks I would ask that.

[Baitball Blogger]

70. What else would you call it then?