PLEASE do not ever measure your performance by the absurd modern-day media standards where one is asked to explain complex world-shifting economic concepts within the one or two minutes allotted before 3 unnecessarily loud ads try to convince us the real reason our health, marriages and democracy are all struggling is because we're using the wrong shampoo.
Ian, you are right about trying to explain complex concepts in one-two-minute soundbites. I thought Prof. Reich did a really good job with the time he had, sleep or no sleep. He used normal-people language and ended in the negative, because it is a real problem, not just something people will be able to blow off easily and all will be well.
Bill, yeah, the 24-hour news cycle is just plain ridiculous, so the nonsense keeps getting repeated just as much as the really important information. Check out the coverage of an appalling rally by Trump on Saturday. He said nothing people than his crazies needed to hear, but even MSNBC felt compelled to cover it. They did cover the Mississippi tornado too, but the banking problem, global warming (and its creation of such massive destructive tornados), and other critical issues are set aside because the other coverage over and over is easier. Even on local news stations, the Trump rally had to get more coverage than local stories. That is not good for us as a nation.
Morning Joe, if aware of the location of the professor, could have pre-recorded the interview. Other news-talk shows on MSNBC often have pre-recorded interviews and so it is not only possible but recommended.
Yes, but the crazed media needs that "big news moment" for ratings and advertising dollars. They could care less where the heck you live while they are sipping their coffee.
Ruth, While I thoroughly relate to your justified frustration regarding media coverage, I believe the explanation for the narrowing range of stories we repeatedly hear and see is not necessarily a matter of what’s easy. Let me explain.
Though the media, admittedly, constitute a commercial, profit-driven enterprise, theoretically, it also should meaningfully engage in “public service,”provide vibrant and diverse coverage, and still make a reasonable profit. My concern is that the desire to make increasingly bigger profits drive media owners increasingly to provide popular rather than useful content.
Barbara Jo, it is really difficult for media, especially since a few corporations have bought out so many stations. There used to be a rule that an entity could only own a few stations. Of course, that was ended, I am not sure by which party's FCC guys, but now the same garbage can be spewed over many stations in nearly every community. The profit thing is really big and is connected. The problem, if there is profit related to our news media, in particular, how can we tell if the stories are honest or pumping out the corporate line to add to the profits by manipulating people's thinking and acting, including voting. I think that getting news and other information from more than one source is a good idea to protect somewhat against the bubbling that happens when a lie is broadcast on more than one platform.
Ruth, I agree, first, that the consolidation of ownership substantially has reduced both the quality and diversity of voices being heard and, second, that the profit motive, largely, is responsible for the inaccuracies and distortions that are served up, for example, on Fox. Frankly, I’m not concerned about any of us, whom I trust will seek out sources subjecting public officials’ words and deeds to critical scrutiny in order to get as close as possible to the verifiable truth. Instead, I worry about the substantial bloc of indoctrinated people fed only on partisan information and opinion that confirm their own bias. That kind of orthodoxy can kill a democracy—or worse.
Hey Barbara Jo, as usual, you are right about this one. People here tend to become as informed as possible on issues Prof. Reich presents, but so many people elsewhere, don't. That is why a good teacher like the Prof. needs to be heard more widely. He speaks normal people English and explains complex terms in ways that are clear but not insulting. He calls hogwash and rubbish what they are without specifically insulting those creating or stating the nonsense. Good teachers are gems.
Excellent point as usual, Barbara. But I also think Ruth is onto something about it being easier to repeat coverage of rhe same stories over and over.
It may be that an overall profit motivation influences producers' decisions in general. But that's not necessarily the prime consideration at every moment. (Well, maybe it is at Fox News.) It just is easier to pick-up on a "developing story" than to seek out something under-reported.
And here I'll call out MSNBC as well. The prime-time line-up of Chris Hayes, Alex Wagner and Lawrence O'Donnell regularly mirror one another's coverage. And they, in turn, mirror stories from the NY Times and Washington Post: same stories, same guests, same opinions.
And like their colleagues at the 3 broadcast networks, they jump right aboard the Trump train at the least provocation. Why? I think Ruth is right, it's just easier.
Last Friday, President Biden addressed the House of Commons in Canada,. It was a great speech, interrupted by applause and cheers two dozen times, with a rousing sustained standing ovation at the end. Great visuals combined with real substance seems like it would be perfect for a 12 minute segment.
But at the same time, some random guy's scribbled 7- word "death threat" was received at the office of Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg. And Trump's having a rally the next day at Waco! Oh wow, here's a chance to revisit a cult's fiery end with clips of burning buildings and lurid headlines! Hey, those stories write themselves, nothing could be easier.
Biden's speech wasn't even mentioned on MSNBC Friday night. Nor was it mentioned on any of the network Sunday morning shows.
Jerry, Admittedly, I can’t explain the minimal coverage of Biden’s address to Canada’s House of Commons. As for the repetitive coverage you rightly reference on MSNBC’s primetime lineup, “journalistic laziness” (quoting Ruth) never occurred to me, not once. I always had presumed, as with all mainstream media, the profit motive aside, that the corporates had established a range of permissible coverage, outside of which, it was understood, one could not go. Hence, my reason for consuming mainly independent media.
Speaking personally, I would note that Former FCC Member Nicholas Johnson once stated, “Whatever your first issue of concern, media had better be your second. Because without change in the media, progress in your primary area is far less likely.” Accordingly, I expect you’ll forgive me if I’m not especially receptive to accepting “journalistic laziness” as a thing.
Barbara Jo, I was a bit flippant with the "journalistic laziness" but I don't know what else to call it. These program hosts on reputable outlets are good mostly because the guests they have know what they are talking about, and the host asks good questions of those folks. Lately, there seems to be a lot of rehashing, particularly when it comes to Trump and Kump and their many "crimes." I get it that we need to know what is going on, but speculating over and over about what might/could/would/should happen to Trump is tiresome and needs to be seriously limited after all this time, in all the media. If the cult needs to get their daily fix of their god, they can turn to Fox Not Nearly News which will cover just how awful everyone to the left of ultra right is. Maybe activists need to confront those responsible for decisions about MSNBC, CNN, and other outlets to find out what their philosophy is regarding news coverage, which stories are covered and to what extent, and other basics. We need to know why in addition to the "what" of the situation with the goal of broadening coverage.
Jerry, yes, the lack of coverage of Biden's speech was concerning to me too. This morning, I was thinking about the problem that in the nearly 8 years since Trump entered the presidential campaign of 2016,, say, June 1, 2015, he has been a major news story nearly every week, if not every day for long stretches. He is just simply not that great, important. He lied over 30,000 times in public while in office. That does not count the number of times he lied the rest of the time in that nearly 8 years, a stretch that continued with the "rally" covered more than our president's important speech. That is part corporate desire but also, journalistic laziness. That combination is destructive to our democracy and needs to stop, but who will stop it. They just keep finding "good" reasons for covering Trump. I don't agree, but even if there were reasons, a 30 second or less mention would be sufficient, not a 5 minute replay of his lies, recapping of his crimes, and evidence of his increasing dementia. His fan club/cult doesn't care about the crimes or notice the dementia, and the rest of us just want to vomit at Trump and Kump's racism, misogyny, homo/transphobia, xenophobia, self-egrandizement, lying, etc. Our media should be able to do better, but I am beginning to think 8 years of practice has made it a habit that will be hard to break if they even want to break it.
Ruth and Barbara, do you remember Theater of the Absurd from the 1950's and 60's? Eugene Ionesco's "The Leader" captures perfectly the Trump/media dynamic of today.
In the play there's an Announcer who loudly proclaims every move the Leader makes while the Admirers shout "Hurrah!" whatever he does. "He's crossing the river!" "Hurrah!" "He's changing his shirt!" "Hurrah!" "He's eating soup!" "He's shaking hands!" "Hurrah, hurrah! Long live the Leader!" That's pretty much the whole play except for a little subplot about two lovers who discover they have something in common -- they each know nothing about the other.
At the end of the play the leader turns out to have no head, though he is wearing a hat. When one Admirer points this out, the Announcer says, "What's he need a head for when he's got genius!"
The U.S. citizens have had their quality of life absconded by the high-salaried reward areas of the electronic media's command centers, ie., brains. Also, the world. Gimme, gimme, gimme. Money for nothing. . .
As an elder with the weirdest of sleep cycles, I understand. But heavens you are more articulate half sleep than 90% of those fully rested. Please do more broadcast interviews. Every time I hear someone on CNN or PBS on labor, social (in)equality or financial issues I always say to myself, “I wish Robert was addressing this.” More please and you looked handsome as well. 👑
I too am an elder with as 'elder' kitty kat to deal with = up and about at all - nighttime - hours (nocturnal ?). And I really got a chuckle out of R.R.' comment of 'sleep fairies'. I too have a similar 'problem' with the fairies leaving - dust caking my eyelids ~ ~ ~ magic fairy dust or not ~
Crepuscular, technically: they hunt at dawn and dusk. They wake up at first light (still too dark for humans to discern) and go to the window to “hunt” birds and squirrels. By the time you dimly realize it will be morning soon, they have gone back to sleep… but not you!
Robert, as a nurse, the weird hours are something I understand!
Try appearing on a Monday night 'Rachel Maddow Show'. I'm sure there were lot of other people on both coasts who were asleep during 'Morning Joe'. People need to hear what you have to say.
I've also watched Robert on several of his YouTube episodes and ALL of them are - very noteworthy ! and well put together/filmed, and always - to the point - of current events.
Spot on with the “cruelest form of capitalism” analogy, Mr. Secretary. This is what happens when so-called conservatism throws integrity out the window and tries to to bleed the most out of those thar can bear the strain the least.
Both the GOP and today’s banking tycoons are
#ProSTRIFE
To quote Ross Perot, the “giant sucking sound“ we hear is the last shred of compassion and humanity seeping out of capitalism gone wild.
Capitalism is working exactly as it was intended. There was NEVER anything humane about it🤦♀️ It ALLOWS people to throw people on to the streets and forces them to starve if they don't have money.
Capitalism is a scam. It's the world's largest pyramid scheme.
Jasmine, Having shared your understanding of the effects of capitalism, I would find it enormously helpful if you also would share how you define it. Additionally, I would find it useful to know whether you distinguish between “capitalism gone wild” (Todd Telford) and capitalism wedded to social democratic institutions that regulate and contain it. I would note I seek clarification, in part, because despite having read several of your postings, I neither have an understanding of the system you would advocate nor the factors it would involve.
Capitalism literally CANNOT exist without cruelty and exploitation. You LITERALLY DIE if you don't have money. You don't get anymore barbaric than that. Stop defending it. Oh, MLK and Malcolm X were anti capitalists, too.
I’m not defending capitalism. I’m requesting you share how you define it and, borrowing from Todd, whether you distinguish between runaway, “wild” capitalism and capitalism wedded to a democratic, regulatory state which levels its effects.
Yeah, regulating psychopaths DOESN'T WORK. Children are mining cobalt, lithium, diamonds. You care not for the people that CAPITALISM EXPLOITS THE MOST. The Republicans are rolling back child labor laws. Seek help for your lack of empathy and compassion.
Wow Jasmine, that was pretty rude. You were simply being asked your definition of Capitalism. It is easy to throw all kinds of negatives at a term, but when everyone is not on the same page, your words can sound fanatical, just like Republicans/conservatives who stand against everyone who does not believe what they believe, but can't or won't define what those beliefs are in any meaningful way and what kind of life their beliefs would create for themselves and others.
Let's hold up a minute and look through history. Feudalism was the dominant economic system in medieval Europe. Under feudalism, the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord's land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection. Was it cruel? You bet. Did it murder peasants with military service, starvation, famine, plagues, untreated diseases, and a totalitarian church? You bet. Did peasants revolt? Repeatedly. Were any of the peasant revolts successful? Not a single one. What ended feudalism? The bubonic plague, aka the Black Death, reduced the population of Europe by 1/4 to 1/2, depending on whom you read, circa 1500. Also, a rising middle class and a shift in military service to professional fighters; but it was not until 1789 that the French general assembly formally ended feudalism.
Stepping outside of Europe, what about China? Several thousand years' worth of warring states, absolute monarchy, trade, industrialism, technological advances, all leading to today's state capitalism in which, throughout all the millennia, the Chinese live with an authoritarian zeitgeist. Ditto Russia. Ditto African empires.
And let's not forget communism. Under Stalin the Soviet Union murdered and starved and imprisoned millions of people. Putin, post SU, is doing the same.
So is capitalism unique in its cruelty? No. It's about Authoritarianism, whether they be transnational corporations, corrupt bankers, petty lords, what have you. Our problem is not unique to capitalism, is it?
Jasmine, I would note, when you attack someone’s character or intellect (in this case, me) in lieu of providing the clarifications I had requested, ultimately, you discredit yourself.
Martha, I have done both. Hence my reason for pressing Jasmine for clarification. Please note I do so, because, as I imagine we all would agree, no intelligent, reasoned discussion can proceed if we do not share a basic understanding of one another’s way of defining a term or an issue.
Jen, The theoretician to whom you are referring is Todd Telford, the subscriber who started this thread. I didn’t include his last name because I had done so in my previous posting. As for the rest of my comment, my intent was to “offer something useful”—trying to establish a shared understanding of an “ism,” without which, as I already have stated, no intelligent, reasoned discussion can proceed.
“The fact is that capitalism was built on the exploitation and suffering of black slaves and continues to thrive on the exploitation of the poor - both black and white, both here and abroad."
Have you taken college level Economics? Political Science? Do you read extensively from credible and varied print sources on those subjects? If not, you are missing very important information: many-layers and throughout the decades of world and North American history. There's a lot of constructive information out there for discernment and the taking. Unless you're funded by bad state actors, eg., Russians.
Honey, I learned all I needed to know about capitalism in the fifth grade. Lol. I got a very good education.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme. Literally.
At its core: NO MONEY YOU DIE.
The oligarchs "pay you" to do labor they're too lazy to AND THEN CHARGE you FOR YOUR LITERAL SURVIVAL. Hence, funneling that money right back to themselves.
Omg ! OMg ! OMG !!! The sky is falling ! The Sky is Falling ! THE SKY IS FALLING !!!
We all KNOW now what you are AGAINST. Just WHAT the hell are you FOR ???
We are all still small Tribes of hunter/gatherers always led by some flavor of semi genius that claims some special connection to an invisible Creator that lives in the SKY ! We continue to "teach" our children the same voodoo hoodoo doodoo that we were taught. Support my GOD my way or I'll kill you. After all these years we are still just animals in herds trying to feed themselves. Things so far have NOT CHANGED . . . The Snake Oil Flim-Flam MEN still hypnotize the "people" with the same product . . . with just a slightly different flavor. Vote early and OFTEN !
With due empathy for Dr Reich's tribulation in making his appearance on national television, your comment this morning broaches one of my pet peeves, that I've banged on about here on many occasions. It concerns another of the "big lies" - so called - that the media and other outlets have banged on about. It all seems - to me - calculated to have us all believe there's only one - big lie, that is! On the other hand, the proliferation of bat-shit conspiracy theories have served to make the most rational among us uncomfortable when we perceive there's more to current events than meets the eye, that someone knows about, and that ain't a'tellin! For example, Republicans across the US are trying to spin the multiple investigations of habitual criminality they support are "witch hunts" - equivalent to conspiracy theories. No! It's not a strange coincidence to have multiple, simultaneous criminal investigations into the wrongdoing of a career criminal. Yet, they've even weaponized government oversight into an investigation of government weaponization! Every time I find myself thinking "this must be what it's like to be going mad," the Republicans come up with some "fresh new hell" that makes me reconsider: "No. THIS is what it's like to be going mad!"
This morning I came across an item that reflects my frequent assertion in this forum that >>> there is no such thing as an effective US Left! <<< (My respect for and apologies to Bernie!) I've even included links to articles posted by an outlet >I< consider truly left, for comparison - that have been misinterpret by at least one of the best among us here. The folks at the other end of those links consider Bernie the "faux left" or the "pseudo left." The whole message here is that it's a matter of perception within the context of political reality within the "collective information bubble" we're all more or less hostage to.
The big lie I'm talking about in this case is the one about there >even being< a political left in the US, let alone "radical left" - or socialism. ol' Tweety seems to believe that shouting it loudly through a greatly amplified sound system to a crowd of slavish followers will make it so - or at least he believes the folks he's shouting at will believe it's so, and he's >right<, unfortunately. It's a lesson the evangelicals have taught well, from the pulpits and on TV churches. To that end, the item I came across this morning disambiguates the Republibullshit - it explains >exactly< my objection far better than my personal skills can clearly explain. This item is worth every one of the 17 minutes spent with, and is worthy of review multiple times. Consider it a lesson in self-defense:
>Know< that the Republicans can only baffle with bullshit. Know what they're saying and know what you're talking about when you tell them to bugger-off - or call them a pack of goddam liars, if you prefer - and that includes the best and nicest among them. Their seeming hospitality and friendliness comes from >exactly the same< cesspool as what they shovel in politics.
As a further thought:
The only precident a'bustin' ol Tweety will set is to formally establish that "NOBODY IS ABOVE THE GODDAM LAW!"
I don't watch that program because of its broadcast time, but I did watch the video of your appearance (thank you for that) and I think you looked, sounded and responded superbly! I don't think most people could do as well at 3 am-ish on such a complex and fraught subject.
One thing about banking during the years since the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed is that banks made enormous profits while paying no interest on accounts, almost literally zero interest - as close to zero as they could pay. That went on for many, many years. So while wages were stagnant, banks paid virtually no interest, and middle-class jobs moved away or closed, banks were making out like bandits - like most of the financial institutions in America. It's a travesty and one wonders how long Americans are going to take it and take it and take it. Do folks see the huge crowds of protesters in the streets of Paris and in Israel - and in recent years the incredibly brave folks protesting in Hong Kong?
Mr. Secretary, keep up the good work; even in the pre-dawn hours, you were speaking the truth.
I don't understand why banks don't pay interest on our accounts. They used to but now, not so much. I was paid .01 last month. I called my bank and asked them to take it back. It was a joke I said. They said they couldn't take it back. I earned it They said. I couldn't stop laughing. I asked them to write me a check and mail it to me.
Yes, Kathryn, I, too, got around .01% of the money I have in the bank as interest and it will be taxed as income. I am wondering if the bank's gains will be taxed. I may end up paying more in taxes than the bank will pay on its billions gained this year from loan interests, bank fees, etc. I am guessing it will be around $.70.
With the recent rise in interest rates by the Fed, if your bank's interest rate is still so low, you're at the wrong bank, or maybe you just need to ask your bank to switch you to a new account with higher interest rate. You might ask for a "money market" account. I admit it's still less interest than you'd expect.
I agree Jasmine that I would like to see Prof. Reich with Rachel Maddow and/or Medi Hassan. They are both very good interviewers and listeners. That counts for a lot.
Sounded and looked good Prof. Reich, I was absolutely convinced you knew what you were talking about. But then again, it is 3:25 in the morning here in mid-Mo.
Like everyone has already said so far, good heavens you did just fine, as concise as always. We know you well enough, surely, to know you were not fishing for compliments. OK, maybe you were just enticing us to watch, though you know there's no need to!
Yes, I will admit, your eyes did look ever so slightly "bleary", though I probably would not have noticed at all had I not known what had transpired during the 15 minutes before you spoke.
Frankly, I just don't understand. I'm sure it's been talked about before, I certainly don't listen and read everything, hardly, but when I hear all of the experts, pundits, and economists, well known and respectable, and surely well-meaning, speak about today's financial situation and most especially the raising of interest rates to offset any kind of a recession, without going to the root problem as you do explaining the inequality of the system whereby the wealthier get wealthier, and are rewarded and rescued to the detriment of all the strata below, not only do they not seem to have ever heard any of the concepts you speak of, but if they do understand in the most general terms what you speak of consistently, why cannot they say just a few words as an aside, before explaining their own theories as to why interest hikes are the thing to do? Just a few words of factual theory about root causes, please! I am speaking of economists at the very TOP, know what I mean? THE TOP! Have they not heard of Robert Reich? Tell us Mr. Reich, do they ever call you on the side and ask you for your opinion, you know, like, off the record, hush-hush? Or have they forgotten you, pretend they ever knew or heard of you, decided that you no longer exist, or ever existed, or are you simply, I don't know, the invisible economist? Do we need to wrap you up in bandages so they can see and hear you? Do they really think that you are so way off the chart that there is nothing to consider, nothing there-there in all you say that is so reasonable, rational, and infinitely self evident? Why can't they throw in a little sensible pedagogy into their pronouncements, and sprinkle in a little bit of humanity while they're at it, as you do in all of your explanations, whatever may be their economic theories? What's the divide about? What is it that makes so much sense to us who listen and follow you that doesn't make sense enough to them to at least mention the underlying causes of the situation, regardless of how they wish to deal with it today, by raising rates or whatever they think best to do to help/save the economy? We are listening to them, the people of the nation are listening to them, why can't they teach us as you do???!!!!!
Sonia, good comment and to respond as to why Prof. Reich can get his very sensible points across when so many other "top" economists don't, Prof. Reich is a teacher, a good teacher. Teachers are often dismissed as just extras. The idea that all students need is a good textbook and a detailed teaching manual and anyone can teach is nonsense. Prof. Reich is proof of that. He is a good teacher, knows his material and how to get it across to his students (that's us), and does it in terms and a style that is readily understood. It takes significant training and experience to do that, something most people do not realize. As a nearly life-long teacher, I understand how difficult that is and what a treat it is for a teacher to learn that the students got it and understand the concept or have learned the skill. We the People need to value teachers more and appreciate the good ones while offering more training for or other jobs for those who are not talented as teachers.
Don't knock yourself, dear Mr. Secretary, you were great. I follow your podcast with great interest, and I surely understood every word you said. Sila from Switzerland (not a customer or investor of Credit Suisse)
While I applaud your tenacity and somewhat understand your point, your 20 or more replies remind me of a foghorn. Extremely important to alert others unaware of a danger, but ultimately lacking in subtlety.
Would you consider holding your response to a comment until it could be interpreted as supportive and/or constructive?
I do not for a moment wish to curb your right to free speech, but at some point, like the foghorn (or Peter crying wolf) the alarm falls on deaf ears and is ultimately ignored.
I'm a realist. I call things as they are, no sugar coated bullshit. Capitalism has brought about the 6th great extinction and humans are on the endangered species list😔 We did this to ourselves.
PLEASE do not ever measure your performance by the absurd modern-day media standards where one is asked to explain complex world-shifting economic concepts within the one or two minutes allotted before 3 unnecessarily loud ads try to convince us the real reason our health, marriages and democracy are all struggling is because we're using the wrong shampoo.
Ian, you are right about trying to explain complex concepts in one-two-minute soundbites. I thought Prof. Reich did a really good job with the time he had, sleep or no sleep. He used normal-people language and ended in the negative, because it is a real problem, not just something people will be able to blow off easily and all will be well.
Well said!
If only it was true that we could solve our problems by using the right shampoo!
The 24 hour news cycle isnt humanly possible.
Bill, yeah, the 24-hour news cycle is just plain ridiculous, so the nonsense keeps getting repeated just as much as the really important information. Check out the coverage of an appalling rally by Trump on Saturday. He said nothing people than his crazies needed to hear, but even MSNBC felt compelled to cover it. They did cover the Mississippi tornado too, but the banking problem, global warming (and its creation of such massive destructive tornados), and other critical issues are set aside because the other coverage over and over is easier. Even on local news stations, the Trump rally had to get more coverage than local stories. That is not good for us as a nation.
Morning Joe, if aware of the location of the professor, could have pre-recorded the interview. Other news-talk shows on MSNBC often have pre-recorded interviews and so it is not only possible but recommended.
Yup, would have been thoughtful.
Yes, but the crazed media needs that "big news moment" for ratings and advertising dollars. They could care less where the heck you live while they are sipping their coffee.
Ruth, While I thoroughly relate to your justified frustration regarding media coverage, I believe the explanation for the narrowing range of stories we repeatedly hear and see is not necessarily a matter of what’s easy. Let me explain.
Though the media, admittedly, constitute a commercial, profit-driven enterprise, theoretically, it also should meaningfully engage in “public service,”provide vibrant and diverse coverage, and still make a reasonable profit. My concern is that the desire to make increasingly bigger profits drive media owners increasingly to provide popular rather than useful content.
Barbara Jo, it is really difficult for media, especially since a few corporations have bought out so many stations. There used to be a rule that an entity could only own a few stations. Of course, that was ended, I am not sure by which party's FCC guys, but now the same garbage can be spewed over many stations in nearly every community. The profit thing is really big and is connected. The problem, if there is profit related to our news media, in particular, how can we tell if the stories are honest or pumping out the corporate line to add to the profits by manipulating people's thinking and acting, including voting. I think that getting news and other information from more than one source is a good idea to protect somewhat against the bubbling that happens when a lie is broadcast on more than one platform.
Ruth, I agree, first, that the consolidation of ownership substantially has reduced both the quality and diversity of voices being heard and, second, that the profit motive, largely, is responsible for the inaccuracies and distortions that are served up, for example, on Fox. Frankly, I’m not concerned about any of us, whom I trust will seek out sources subjecting public officials’ words and deeds to critical scrutiny in order to get as close as possible to the verifiable truth. Instead, I worry about the substantial bloc of indoctrinated people fed only on partisan information and opinion that confirm their own bias. That kind of orthodoxy can kill a democracy—or worse.
Hey Barbara Jo, as usual, you are right about this one. People here tend to become as informed as possible on issues Prof. Reich presents, but so many people elsewhere, don't. That is why a good teacher like the Prof. needs to be heard more widely. He speaks normal people English and explains complex terms in ways that are clear but not insulting. He calls hogwash and rubbish what they are without specifically insulting those creating or stating the nonsense. Good teachers are gems.
I thought monopolies were supposed to be illegal? It's just like everything else. Grease someone's palm and they look away.
Excellent point as usual, Barbara. But I also think Ruth is onto something about it being easier to repeat coverage of rhe same stories over and over.
It may be that an overall profit motivation influences producers' decisions in general. But that's not necessarily the prime consideration at every moment. (Well, maybe it is at Fox News.) It just is easier to pick-up on a "developing story" than to seek out something under-reported.
And here I'll call out MSNBC as well. The prime-time line-up of Chris Hayes, Alex Wagner and Lawrence O'Donnell regularly mirror one another's coverage. And they, in turn, mirror stories from the NY Times and Washington Post: same stories, same guests, same opinions.
And like their colleagues at the 3 broadcast networks, they jump right aboard the Trump train at the least provocation. Why? I think Ruth is right, it's just easier.
Last Friday, President Biden addressed the House of Commons in Canada,. It was a great speech, interrupted by applause and cheers two dozen times, with a rousing sustained standing ovation at the end. Great visuals combined with real substance seems like it would be perfect for a 12 minute segment.
But at the same time, some random guy's scribbled 7- word "death threat" was received at the office of Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg. And Trump's having a rally the next day at Waco! Oh wow, here's a chance to revisit a cult's fiery end with clips of burning buildings and lurid headlines! Hey, those stories write themselves, nothing could be easier.
Biden's speech wasn't even mentioned on MSNBC Friday night. Nor was it mentioned on any of the network Sunday morning shows.
.
.
Tragic omissions of necessary and real news by supposedly reputable broadcast outlets.
Jerry, Admittedly, I can’t explain the minimal coverage of Biden’s address to Canada’s House of Commons. As for the repetitive coverage you rightly reference on MSNBC’s primetime lineup, “journalistic laziness” (quoting Ruth) never occurred to me, not once. I always had presumed, as with all mainstream media, the profit motive aside, that the corporates had established a range of permissible coverage, outside of which, it was understood, one could not go. Hence, my reason for consuming mainly independent media.
Speaking personally, I would note that Former FCC Member Nicholas Johnson once stated, “Whatever your first issue of concern, media had better be your second. Because without change in the media, progress in your primary area is far less likely.” Accordingly, I expect you’ll forgive me if I’m not especially receptive to accepting “journalistic laziness” as a thing.
Barbara Jo, I was a bit flippant with the "journalistic laziness" but I don't know what else to call it. These program hosts on reputable outlets are good mostly because the guests they have know what they are talking about, and the host asks good questions of those folks. Lately, there seems to be a lot of rehashing, particularly when it comes to Trump and Kump and their many "crimes." I get it that we need to know what is going on, but speculating over and over about what might/could/would/should happen to Trump is tiresome and needs to be seriously limited after all this time, in all the media. If the cult needs to get their daily fix of their god, they can turn to Fox Not Nearly News which will cover just how awful everyone to the left of ultra right is. Maybe activists need to confront those responsible for decisions about MSNBC, CNN, and other outlets to find out what their philosophy is regarding news coverage, which stories are covered and to what extent, and other basics. We need to know why in addition to the "what" of the situation with the goal of broadening coverage.
Jerry, yes, the lack of coverage of Biden's speech was concerning to me too. This morning, I was thinking about the problem that in the nearly 8 years since Trump entered the presidential campaign of 2016,, say, June 1, 2015, he has been a major news story nearly every week, if not every day for long stretches. He is just simply not that great, important. He lied over 30,000 times in public while in office. That does not count the number of times he lied the rest of the time in that nearly 8 years, a stretch that continued with the "rally" covered more than our president's important speech. That is part corporate desire but also, journalistic laziness. That combination is destructive to our democracy and needs to stop, but who will stop it. They just keep finding "good" reasons for covering Trump. I don't agree, but even if there were reasons, a 30 second or less mention would be sufficient, not a 5 minute replay of his lies, recapping of his crimes, and evidence of his increasing dementia. His fan club/cult doesn't care about the crimes or notice the dementia, and the rest of us just want to vomit at Trump and Kump's racism, misogyny, homo/transphobia, xenophobia, self-egrandizement, lying, etc. Our media should be able to do better, but I am beginning to think 8 years of practice has made it a habit that will be hard to break if they even want to break it.
Ruth and Barbara, do you remember Theater of the Absurd from the 1950's and 60's? Eugene Ionesco's "The Leader" captures perfectly the Trump/media dynamic of today.
In the play there's an Announcer who loudly proclaims every move the Leader makes while the Admirers shout "Hurrah!" whatever he does. "He's crossing the river!" "Hurrah!" "He's changing his shirt!" "Hurrah!" "He's eating soup!" "He's shaking hands!" "Hurrah, hurrah! Long live the Leader!" That's pretty much the whole play except for a little subplot about two lovers who discover they have something in common -- they each know nothing about the other.
At the end of the play the leader turns out to have no head, though he is wearing a hat. When one Admirer points this out, the Announcer says, "What's he need a head for when he's got genius!"
.
The U.S. citizens have had their quality of life absconded by the high-salaried reward areas of the electronic media's command centers, ie., brains. Also, the world. Gimme, gimme, gimme. Money for nothing. . .
Good comment!
Yep!
As an elder with the weirdest of sleep cycles, I understand. But heavens you are more articulate half sleep than 90% of those fully rested. Please do more broadcast interviews. Every time I hear someone on CNN or PBS on labor, social (in)equality or financial issues I always say to myself, “I wish Robert was addressing this.” More please and you looked handsome as well. 👑
D. White: As an elder with my own weird sleep cycles, all I can say is that if you think your sleep cycles are weird now, try adopting 2 or 3 cats. 😸
I too am an elder with as 'elder' kitty kat to deal with = up and about at all - nighttime - hours (nocturnal ?). And I really got a chuckle out of R.R.' comment of 'sleep fairies'. I too have a similar 'problem' with the fairies leaving - dust caking my eyelids ~ ~ ~ magic fairy dust or not ~
Crepuscular, technically: they hunt at dawn and dusk. They wake up at first light (still too dark for humans to discern) and go to the window to “hunt” birds and squirrels. By the time you dimly realize it will be morning soon, they have gone back to sleep… but not you!
Thought it was just me with the crazy sleep schedule. Hallelujah!
Perfectly put.
Robert, as a nurse, the weird hours are something I understand!
Try appearing on a Monday night 'Rachel Maddow Show'. I'm sure there were lot of other people on both coasts who were asleep during 'Morning Joe'. People need to hear what you have to say.
Exactly. He is a smart honest voice
I've also watched Robert on several of his YouTube episodes and ALL of them are - very noteworthy ! and well put together/filmed, and always - to the point - of current events.
Or Colbert or Kimmel! Even if you have to speak from inside an arcade claw machine like Mike Lindell did.
Spot on with the “cruelest form of capitalism” analogy, Mr. Secretary. This is what happens when so-called conservatism throws integrity out the window and tries to to bleed the most out of those thar can bear the strain the least.
Both the GOP and today’s banking tycoons are
#ProSTRIFE
To quote Ross Perot, the “giant sucking sound“ we hear is the last shred of compassion and humanity seeping out of capitalism gone wild.
Capitalism is working exactly as it was intended. There was NEVER anything humane about it🤦♀️ It ALLOWS people to throw people on to the streets and forces them to starve if they don't have money.
Capitalism is a scam. It's the world's largest pyramid scheme.
Jasmine, Having shared your understanding of the effects of capitalism, I would find it enormously helpful if you also would share how you define it. Additionally, I would find it useful to know whether you distinguish between “capitalism gone wild” (Todd Telford) and capitalism wedded to social democratic institutions that regulate and contain it. I would note I seek clarification, in part, because despite having read several of your postings, I neither have an understanding of the system you would advocate nor the factors it would involve.
Capitalism literally CANNOT exist without cruelty and exploitation. You LITERALLY DIE if you don't have money. You don't get anymore barbaric than that. Stop defending it. Oh, MLK and Malcolm X were anti capitalists, too.
I’m not defending capitalism. I’m requesting you share how you define it and, borrowing from Todd, whether you distinguish between runaway, “wild” capitalism and capitalism wedded to a democratic, regulatory state which levels its effects.
Yeah, regulating psychopaths DOESN'T WORK. Children are mining cobalt, lithium, diamonds. You care not for the people that CAPITALISM EXPLOITS THE MOST. The Republicans are rolling back child labor laws. Seek help for your lack of empathy and compassion.
Wow Jasmine, that was pretty rude. You were simply being asked your definition of Capitalism. It is easy to throw all kinds of negatives at a term, but when everyone is not on the same page, your words can sound fanatical, just like Republicans/conservatives who stand against everyone who does not believe what they believe, but can't or won't define what those beliefs are in any meaningful way and what kind of life their beliefs would create for themselves and others.
Let's hold up a minute and look through history. Feudalism was the dominant economic system in medieval Europe. Under feudalism, the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord's land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection. Was it cruel? You bet. Did it murder peasants with military service, starvation, famine, plagues, untreated diseases, and a totalitarian church? You bet. Did peasants revolt? Repeatedly. Were any of the peasant revolts successful? Not a single one. What ended feudalism? The bubonic plague, aka the Black Death, reduced the population of Europe by 1/4 to 1/2, depending on whom you read, circa 1500. Also, a rising middle class and a shift in military service to professional fighters; but it was not until 1789 that the French general assembly formally ended feudalism.
Stepping outside of Europe, what about China? Several thousand years' worth of warring states, absolute monarchy, trade, industrialism, technological advances, all leading to today's state capitalism in which, throughout all the millennia, the Chinese live with an authoritarian zeitgeist. Ditto Russia. Ditto African empires.
And let's not forget communism. Under Stalin the Soviet Union murdered and starved and imprisoned millions of people. Putin, post SU, is doing the same.
So is capitalism unique in its cruelty? No. It's about Authoritarianism, whether they be transnational corporations, corrupt bankers, petty lords, what have you. Our problem is not unique to capitalism, is it?
Jasmine, I would note, when you attack someone’s character or intellect (in this case, me) in lieu of providing the clarifications I had requested, ultimately, you discredit yourself.
Look at the nordic nations and read Reich's book Saving Capitalism. https://www.perlego.com/book/569539/saving-capitalism-for-the-many-not-the-few-pdf
Martha, I have done both. Hence my reason for pressing Jasmine for clarification. Please note I do so, because, as I imagine we all would agree, no intelligent, reasoned discussion can proceed if we do not share a basic understanding of one another’s way of defining a term or an issue.
No🤦♀️ Under capitalism, YOU LITERALLY DIE IF YOU DON'T HAVE MONEY 🤦♀️ Why are you okay with that?
It's cruel and barbaric. It's literally DESTROYED OUR PLANET AND PUT HUMANS ON THE ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST.
Humans are too selfish and stupid to live.
You’re picking nits. You know damn well that pure “capitalism “ isn’t even a thing here. It’s exploitation.
It’s like asking the right wing ignoramuses ( or a Supreme Court justice to define porn) to define CRT.
Why don’t you offer something useful rather than references to some theoretician no one has heard of?
Jen, The theoretician to whom you are referring is Todd Telford, the subscriber who started this thread. I didn’t include his last name because I had done so in my previous posting. As for the rest of my comment, my intent was to “offer something useful”—trying to establish a shared understanding of an “ism,” without which, as I already have stated, no intelligent, reasoned discussion can proceed.
Why is there a COST JUST TO BE ALIVE?
NO MONEY YOU DIE.
Capitalism in a nutshell.
Yes, you're defending it🤮
Jasmine: Indeed.
“The fact is that capitalism was built on the exploitation and suffering of black slaves and continues to thrive on the exploitation of the poor - both black and white, both here and abroad."
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Yep😔 And people STILL defend it. The lack of empathy, sympathy, and compassion amongst our species is horrific.
Have you taken college level Economics? Political Science? Do you read extensively from credible and varied print sources on those subjects? If not, you are missing very important information: many-layers and throughout the decades of world and North American history. There's a lot of constructive information out there for discernment and the taking. Unless you're funded by bad state actors, eg., Russians.
Honey, I learned all I needed to know about capitalism in the fifth grade. Lol. I got a very good education.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme. Literally.
At its core: NO MONEY YOU DIE.
The oligarchs "pay you" to do labor they're too lazy to AND THEN CHARGE you FOR YOUR LITERAL SURVIVAL. Hence, funneling that money right back to themselves.
Oh, ALL MARKETING IS PROPAGANDA.
Money is worthless.
Capitalism is IMAGINARY.
Jasmine:
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
--Anatole France, The Red Lily
It's almost as if the cruelty is the point.
Omg ! OMg ! OMG !!! The sky is falling ! The Sky is Falling ! THE SKY IS FALLING !!!
We all KNOW now what you are AGAINST. Just WHAT the hell are you FOR ???
We are all still small Tribes of hunter/gatherers always led by some flavor of semi genius that claims some special connection to an invisible Creator that lives in the SKY ! We continue to "teach" our children the same voodoo hoodoo doodoo that we were taught. Support my GOD my way or I'll kill you. After all these years we are still just animals in herds trying to feed themselves. Things so far have NOT CHANGED . . . The Snake Oil Flim-Flam MEN still hypnotize the "people" with the same product . . . with just a slightly different flavor. Vote early and OFTEN !
Eating the rich😉😘🤣
With due empathy for Dr Reich's tribulation in making his appearance on national television, your comment this morning broaches one of my pet peeves, that I've banged on about here on many occasions. It concerns another of the "big lies" - so called - that the media and other outlets have banged on about. It all seems - to me - calculated to have us all believe there's only one - big lie, that is! On the other hand, the proliferation of bat-shit conspiracy theories have served to make the most rational among us uncomfortable when we perceive there's more to current events than meets the eye, that someone knows about, and that ain't a'tellin! For example, Republicans across the US are trying to spin the multiple investigations of habitual criminality they support are "witch hunts" - equivalent to conspiracy theories. No! It's not a strange coincidence to have multiple, simultaneous criminal investigations into the wrongdoing of a career criminal. Yet, they've even weaponized government oversight into an investigation of government weaponization! Every time I find myself thinking "this must be what it's like to be going mad," the Republicans come up with some "fresh new hell" that makes me reconsider: "No. THIS is what it's like to be going mad!"
This morning I came across an item that reflects my frequent assertion in this forum that >>> there is no such thing as an effective US Left! <<< (My respect for and apologies to Bernie!) I've even included links to articles posted by an outlet >I< consider truly left, for comparison - that have been misinterpret by at least one of the best among us here. The folks at the other end of those links consider Bernie the "faux left" or the "pseudo left." The whole message here is that it's a matter of perception within the context of political reality within the "collective information bubble" we're all more or less hostage to.
The big lie I'm talking about in this case is the one about there >even being< a political left in the US, let alone "radical left" - or socialism. ol' Tweety seems to believe that shouting it loudly through a greatly amplified sound system to a crowd of slavish followers will make it so - or at least he believes the folks he's shouting at will believe it's so, and he's >right<, unfortunately. It's a lesson the evangelicals have taught well, from the pulpits and on TV churches. To that end, the item I came across this morning disambiguates the Republibullshit - it explains >exactly< my objection far better than my personal skills can clearly explain. This item is worth every one of the 17 minutes spent with, and is worthy of review multiple times. Consider it a lesson in self-defense:
- HOW LEFT IS THE AMERICAN LEFT:
https://youtu.be/FYbtHGt2Zco
>Know< that the Republicans can only baffle with bullshit. Know what they're saying and know what you're talking about when you tell them to bugger-off - or call them a pack of goddam liars, if you prefer - and that includes the best and nicest among them. Their seeming hospitality and friendliness comes from >exactly the same< cesspool as what they shovel in politics.
As a further thought:
The only precident a'bustin' ol Tweety will set is to formally establish that "NOBODY IS ABOVE THE GODDAM LAW!"
Well said!!
I don't watch that program because of its broadcast time, but I did watch the video of your appearance (thank you for that) and I think you looked, sounded and responded superbly! I don't think most people could do as well at 3 am-ish on such a complex and fraught subject.
One thing about banking during the years since the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed is that banks made enormous profits while paying no interest on accounts, almost literally zero interest - as close to zero as they could pay. That went on for many, many years. So while wages were stagnant, banks paid virtually no interest, and middle-class jobs moved away or closed, banks were making out like bandits - like most of the financial institutions in America. It's a travesty and one wonders how long Americans are going to take it and take it and take it. Do folks see the huge crowds of protesters in the streets of Paris and in Israel - and in recent years the incredibly brave folks protesting in Hong Kong?
Mr. Secretary, keep up the good work; even in the pre-dawn hours, you were speaking the truth.
I don't understand why banks don't pay interest on our accounts. They used to but now, not so much. I was paid .01 last month. I called my bank and asked them to take it back. It was a joke I said. They said they couldn't take it back. I earned it They said. I couldn't stop laughing. I asked them to write me a check and mail it to me.
Yes, Kathryn, I, too, got around .01% of the money I have in the bank as interest and it will be taxed as income. I am wondering if the bank's gains will be taxed. I may end up paying more in taxes than the bank will pay on its billions gained this year from loan interests, bank fees, etc. I am guessing it will be around $.70.
Now you're cathing on !
Thank you Katherine. We need a laugh emoji here. “Write a check and mail it to me.” Still 😂 😂😂😂😂
It will be fraudulent! See my statement
With the recent rise in interest rates by the Fed, if your bank's interest rate is still so low, you're at the wrong bank, or maybe you just need to ask your bank to switch you to a new account with higher interest rate. You might ask for a "money market" account. I admit it's still less interest than you'd expect.
PS, you can catch the best bits on YouTube with a subscription to the MSNBC channel (its free)......not simultaneously but at your convenience.
You were fine. Could not tell that you were tired or meandering too much.
Agreed.
I just watched it, and you did great!
PS:
It’s the worst when it’s one of those nights of sleep. And then it’s even worse when your alarm doesn’t go off. I now go to sleep with two alarms.
You were great😊 I cannot stand Joe, though. I'd love to see you sit down with Rachel Maddow or Mehdi Hasan.
I agree Jasmine that I would like to see Prof. Reich with Rachel Maddow and/or Medi Hassan. They are both very good interviewers and listeners. That counts for a lot.
It really does.
You did great, but next time Morning Joe calls, request that they pre-record it at a time that suits you. Enough of this East Coast hegemony.
After all, we don't want to interrupt your "California Dreamin'" LOL.
Sounded and looked good Prof. Reich, I was absolutely convinced you knew what you were talking about. But then again, it is 3:25 in the morning here in mid-Mo.
Like everyone has already said so far, good heavens you did just fine, as concise as always. We know you well enough, surely, to know you were not fishing for compliments. OK, maybe you were just enticing us to watch, though you know there's no need to!
Yes, I will admit, your eyes did look ever so slightly "bleary", though I probably would not have noticed at all had I not known what had transpired during the 15 minutes before you spoke.
Frankly, I just don't understand. I'm sure it's been talked about before, I certainly don't listen and read everything, hardly, but when I hear all of the experts, pundits, and economists, well known and respectable, and surely well-meaning, speak about today's financial situation and most especially the raising of interest rates to offset any kind of a recession, without going to the root problem as you do explaining the inequality of the system whereby the wealthier get wealthier, and are rewarded and rescued to the detriment of all the strata below, not only do they not seem to have ever heard any of the concepts you speak of, but if they do understand in the most general terms what you speak of consistently, why cannot they say just a few words as an aside, before explaining their own theories as to why interest hikes are the thing to do? Just a few words of factual theory about root causes, please! I am speaking of economists at the very TOP, know what I mean? THE TOP! Have they not heard of Robert Reich? Tell us Mr. Reich, do they ever call you on the side and ask you for your opinion, you know, like, off the record, hush-hush? Or have they forgotten you, pretend they ever knew or heard of you, decided that you no longer exist, or ever existed, or are you simply, I don't know, the invisible economist? Do we need to wrap you up in bandages so they can see and hear you? Do they really think that you are so way off the chart that there is nothing to consider, nothing there-there in all you say that is so reasonable, rational, and infinitely self evident? Why can't they throw in a little sensible pedagogy into their pronouncements, and sprinkle in a little bit of humanity while they're at it, as you do in all of your explanations, whatever may be their economic theories? What's the divide about? What is it that makes so much sense to us who listen and follow you that doesn't make sense enough to them to at least mention the underlying causes of the situation, regardless of how they wish to deal with it today, by raising rates or whatever they think best to do to help/save the economy? We are listening to them, the people of the nation are listening to them, why can't they teach us as you do???!!!!!
Sonia, good comment and to respond as to why Prof. Reich can get his very sensible points across when so many other "top" economists don't, Prof. Reich is a teacher, a good teacher. Teachers are often dismissed as just extras. The idea that all students need is a good textbook and a detailed teaching manual and anyone can teach is nonsense. Prof. Reich is proof of that. He is a good teacher, knows his material and how to get it across to his students (that's us), and does it in terms and a style that is readily understood. It takes significant training and experience to do that, something most people do not realize. As a nearly life-long teacher, I understand how difficult that is and what a treat it is for a teacher to learn that the students got it and understand the concept or have learned the skill. We the People need to value teachers more and appreciate the good ones while offering more training for or other jobs for those who are not talented as teachers.
You did well, and it was worth the effort you made in order to appear.
Don't knock yourself, dear Mr. Secretary, you were great. I follow your podcast with great interest, and I surely understood every word you said. Sila from Switzerland (not a customer or investor of Credit Suisse)
The beauty editor says you looked great. No clue you hadn't gone the formal grooming route.
Robert, you did just fine. And Todd Telford, you hit on the mark. We are now living in a very selfish world and I feel nobody is driving the bus.
They caused them all and it is evident our Governments work for them...not us.
Exactly. They always have🤷♀️
Hi Jasmine,
While I applaud your tenacity and somewhat understand your point, your 20 or more replies remind me of a foghorn. Extremely important to alert others unaware of a danger, but ultimately lacking in subtlety.
Would you consider holding your response to a comment until it could be interpreted as supportive and/or constructive?
I do not for a moment wish to curb your right to free speech, but at some point, like the foghorn (or Peter crying wolf) the alarm falls on deaf ears and is ultimately ignored.
Thanks in advance for your consideration.
I'm a realist. I call things as they are, no sugar coated bullshit. Capitalism has brought about the 6th great extinction and humans are on the endangered species list😔 We did this to ourselves.
No🤣
Well, I tried.
Thanks...
You prefer sugar coated bullshit over facts? Seriously? Why???
I saw you last Friday. And yesterday and today. It must the cosmos in action since
1. I rarely watch Joe and Mika
2. I’m rarely on Twitter anymore
And
3. You of all people must know the rule of 78’s and how it hurts the poorer folks. If i was rich I would never carry a loan to term!