Are mainstream media conspiring against unions?

[merrily]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025537798

(Thread in General Discussion).

[newfie11]

1. Of course

Look who owns them!

[merrily]

2. 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).

[newfie11]

3. Yes it is worse now

But in the past the owners of these channels were not the oligarchs of today. In times past some employers cared about their employees.
It's a whole different mind set today.
Theres never enough money for them and busting unions means they can pay lower wages.
The unions are sadly not as powerful today with many people not supporting them.
Greed knows no boundary.

[merrily]

4. 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.

[newfie11]

5. I have no doubt they've talked

And this anti union propaganda will be spread far and wide.
So many people today either don't know or care what unions have done for them in the past.
I've heard folks say yeah but their obsolete in today's world or I don't want to pay into a union.
By the time they wake up ( if ever) it might be to late.
My Dad was an IBEW electrician and supported a family very well on union wages.

[merrily]

6. Not only wages, but safer working conditions.

We forget how dangerous mines, sweat shops, etc., were before unions.

Working hours, no overtime, fire hazards with locked exits, etc. It's mind-boggling how people forget. The people who are anti union now might not ever have been born but for union actions making the workplace better for their parents, grandparents or great grand parents.

[Jackpine Radical]

11. I get what you're saying, but

I'm in no position to confirm it because I don't watch that stuff & am TV-illiterate, although I would consider it a very interesting turn of events if true. Not there's not much we can do about this specific instance, but because one could imagine it to be an early-stage experiment in a new level of message coordination for mind control of the masses through repeating their propaganda.

If this sounds like batshit paranoia to anyone, then they may not know who Edward Bernays was, and what he and some of his peers, including Walter Lippman, thought and did. Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud and inventor of modern "public relations"; Lippman, the most-respected editorial voice of the New York Times in the period between the World Wars--Google them.

I certainly do believe that certain privately funded, behind-the-scenes forces in this country could coordinate a collaborative campaign such as you suggest. If they have actually done so, then we are going to be in for a total barrage of coordinated messaging from here on out.

Certainly the labor unions are the most significant source of funds for the Democratic Party, have been a thorn in the side of organized criminals in the suites, and just generally piss off the.001% They are the single biggest source of opposition to the Upper Crust on their path to perfecting of a Randian hell-world. They would be the logical first target.

But hardly the only target. Social Security. ACA. Medicare…in whatever order they choose.

[merrily]

20. The "beauty" for the RW of shaming Democrats about

associating with unions is that you kill a lot of birds with one stone, unless Democrats rear up and nip it in the bud.

You shame Democrats so what happens?

(1) You succeed in making the union association seem sleazy and undesirable, so fewer and fewer people vote for Democrats (and, unless our entire system changes), more and more of them vote for Republicans. Well, that solves everything: pro Union laws, minimum wage increases, Social Security, ACA, Medicare, all of it. Poof!

and/or

(2) You vitiate the potency of union endorsements and succeed in making Democrats shy away from unions. Unions stop donating and supporting Democrats. Democrats find it harder and harder to get elected. Again, good programs, poof!

[merrily]

21. PS On the thread in GD, very few wanted to admit that there might be an actual conspiracy, as in

network heads calling each other or getting their marching orders from the Koch brothers or the whomever. So, thanks for saying the idea is not batshit crazy. I'll Google those men tomorrow.

[Jackpine Radical]

22. A predictable response from them.

Good grief, there's enough information available out in the open to justify "conspiracy theories" about the intentions of the wealthy. Why shouldn't we expect that there are more hidden threads and cash pipelines lying around?

[merrily]

23. People who don't want you to know that people are taking concerted action

against your interests have succeeded in associating the word conspiracy with insanity on the part of the person using that word.

My father was something of a hypochondriac. His doctor told me all hypochondriacs die of actual conditions. Similarly, sometimes there actually ARE conspiracies.

[GeorgeGist]

7. How many media networks are owned by unions?

[merrily]

8. I get who owns msm. But, the general principle that msm works for the

10% and spouts their message is not what I am asking about. I don't think any DUer is ignorant of that.

However, it did occur to me to wonder today why unions don't have a station.

[newfie11]

9. I wish they would support Freespeech TV. Nt

[merrily]

12. I'd rather see them support their own station

[newfie11]

14. In my area ( if there were unions) and there are none that I know of

The local stations here are pro repug.
One is owned by a family and has been forever. I don't know what their paying now but I knew a woman 8 years ago that had a BA ( in broadcasting I think but can't remember for sure). They hired her for $6 dollars an hour.
She worked there 10 months and got out of tv completely.
I don't know who owns the other station as they are out of state.

These are not the people that unions should contribute money to.

This is a repug state except for the reservations.

[merrily]

15. I am not talking about a show. I am talking about an entire station or network

owned by a union or group of unions.

[newfie11]

16. I am talking about the two stations here not a show

If another station opened up and could be supported by unions I would be all for it but I don't see it viable in western SD.

[merrily]

19. By not viable, do you mean no one would watch?

It would be there as part of a union effort to educate the public, not to make money.

[Jackpine Radical]

10. You ask a very interesting question.

I know nothing about the details of video broadcasting, cable etc., so I have no clue how hard it would be to create a station. What are the options for creating a cable station or something? What would be the best technology? How expensive is transmission bandwidth in various scenarios?

[merrily]

13. I don't know the options or the technology, but I know Trinity Broadcasting

brought up a bizillion little stations. Okay, not a bizillion.

[Omaha Steve]

17. I R'd it in both places

OS

[merrily]

18. Thanks. Did you happen read Mountain Grammy's post on the GD thread?

Here's a link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5541634