"If you want a middle-class democracy, you can't have a millionaire press corps"

[nakanishi oshi]

Yesterday, Sean Quinn from fivethirtyeight.com wrotean enlightening article in which he brought up an observation made by a reporter after a recent meeting between the WH press secretary and reporters:

"As one reporter observed after the briefing, "Did you notice all the questions about taxes came from reporters making over $250,000 a year, especially the TV guys?"

During the meeting, Jake Tapper from ABC said this about members of congress: "There are a lot of millionaires up there."

Oh yeah, Jake? Well tell us: How much are YOU worth? Do you earn more than $200,000 a year? If so, will you admit that your huge salary means you, too, have a conflict of interest that is complicated by the fact that Media Matters caught you LYING about how the new tax rules would affect small businesses.

We should hammer this point so we can help neutralize these rich pundits' attempts to undermine Obama's plan to narrow the gap between classes.

Finally, I give you this quote, once written by the great media critic Bob Somerby:

"If you want a middle-class democracy, you can't have a millionaire press corps"

[Triana]

1. I added Somerby's quote to my sigline. It's a good one.

We have GOT to do something about this corprat-pwned media. Either bust them up, or find ways around them such that they become irrelevant.

[AllentownJake]

2. Tim Russert

Not to kick the dead is a perfect example of that.

[NRaleighLiberal]

3. Exactly. Big time conflict of self-interest in the media these days. They are NOT objective.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

4. Remember Charlie Gibson whining interminably about capital gains tax during the debate?

Do you think he had a PERSONAL interest and point that he was flogging?

[PBS Poll-435]

15. That is exactly what I said to the people I was watching the debate with

It was a very strange moment in TV.

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. The right wing cowed the press on the "liberal media" myth

I'm all for calling them out on their salaries and asking them to account for the conflict.

The fact that few people believe these jackasses *deserve* $400,000 a year and more for their clownish antics only adds to the effectiveness of the strategy.

[DemocracyInaction]

6. Amen - it's so patently obvious

When the average guy wants them to ask things like "in dollars, how does this work out for me", etc., they (like asshole Kudlow as an example)are stressed over corporate gains taxes, inheritence, etc. Well, guess what, the rich already have their tax lawyers explaining all that stuff to them. They don't need these useless bastards to ask the questions. There mission is to get their "pretectors" back into power...hence all the covering of CPAC when we Dems were not even allowed to finish a sentence on TV when the Repukes took power.

[Gregorian]

7. The same goes for Congress. See Kucinich.

No more rock star status. They cannot and will not represent us.

But implementing such a dream is impossible, and possibly even counter productive. Some wealthy people do represent us. And I wouldn't want to exclude them. Soros, for example.

[tomp]

14. what are you saying about kucinich? i don't get it. nt

[cliffordu]

8. GREAT LINE!!!! And true too....

[Kalyke]

9. I dislike threads like this for a huge reason: Most Media Don't Make That Much

I worked as a reporter for 12 years. I never made over $20,000. In fact, I left the profession because I might could go to a union paper and make $30,000, but I'd still be working crappy hours, which wouldn't serve my children well.

I think we should clarify and point out that it's big network media who make these million-dollar salaries, because, your local reporter is making about $25 to $30K... when they're not getting laid off.

[nakanishi oshi]

10. but your shot at becoming wealthy would have been greatly increased...

...by kissing up to the wealthy.

Only recently did real progressives such as xOlbermann and Maddow finally make it to the big leagues.

[glitch]

19. That's how Tapper did it. He's been stooging for the repukes since his Salon days. nt

[nichomachus]

21. No, but the ones who matter do

I too took the vow of poverty to become a local journalist -- but the damage to the country is not being done by the guys and gals covering chicken pie suppers, little league ball games or the fender bender on Main St. The damage is being done by the big guys who write and broadcast on the national scene.

And they were coopted by the fascists who made them part of the game. Once you pay someone $250K a year or $2.5 million a year, they lose all sense of identity with the working folks.

[windoe]

11. The millionaire press corps.... a potent concept

that hits the bottom line for everyone to understand. :thumbsup:

[FrenchieCat]

12. Yes, I like that term....

Think I'll call them the Millionaire Corporate WH Press Corp. Perfect!

[rvablue]

13. The problem, as the OP points out is not the WH Press Corps in general but the TV "journalists"

I'd bet you there isn't a single print reporter in that pool who makes a quarter of a million dollars.

Maybe the stenographers for TIME and Newsweek, but that's only a maybe.

The only print reporter that I know of in the WH Press Corps making that much is the Politico "reporter."

The TV "journalists" make at least that much, and I'b bet in most cases, even more.

I think it's important for us to realize the wealth/pay differential between print journalists (many of whom do it for the love of reporting and writing) and TV "journalist" (many of whom are driven by wealth and fame.)

[PBS Poll-435]

16. (Mike Allen)

Time and Politico "reporter."

[Kat45]

17. Sadly, there are fewer and fewer print journalists these days.

Newspapers have been shedding staff for quite some time, and now we're seeing a number of them declaring bankruptcy and/or closing down. And just about everyone we see asking questions at Presidential press conferences is from TV, or at least it was that way during bush. And with today's conglomerates, the "news" division is expected to make money just like any other division. THe companies don't really give a shit about the news, about serving the public by providing it with news.

Pretty much the only people who give us our "news" about the government are those millionaire "journalists."

[Kat45]

18. Very true. I've been saying something similar for quite some time.

[anonymous171]

20. Yep. The MSM has always had an extreme class bias.

That is why blogs are so important.

[EraOfResponsibility]

22. kick

[Ewellian]

23. Just last week I

was listening to msnbc...someone asked Chris Matthews what the "average joe" thought about Obama's stimulus package and the bank bailouts. He began to discuss what he thought "the average joe sitting at the 19th hole at the country club" was thinking. I just shook my head...he's totally clueless.