Six on History: "our" Economy
panaritisp
Welcome back to Six on History
If you like what you find on the "Six on History" blog, please share w/your contacts.
Click here for Detailed Search Help h/t John Elfrank
"CBS News hiring former Trump aide Mick Mulvaney speaks volumes about systemic problems in our media. Mulvaney notoriously defended various Trump chicaneries—including withholding military aid to Ukraine in an attempt to extort its president for political gain—and no democracy worthy of the name should give him a prominent media platform. But once again, commercial values trumped democratic principles in mainstream news media.
A recording of a staff meeting captured CBS News co-president Neeraj Khemlani explaining how the hiring decision was based on maintaining “access” to Republican elites (Washington Post, 3/30/22). He told the staff of CBS‘s morning show:
Being able to make sure that we are getting access to both sides of the aisle is a priority because we know the Republicans are going to take over, most likely, in the midterms.
Such media malpractice recalls the now-disgraced former CBS CEO Les Moonves (Extra!, 4/16) enthusing in 2016 how the Trump campaign “might not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.”
Misguided normsDe-prioritizing democracy is a recurring failure in our commercial news media, often enabled by misguided norms. As Washington Post media critic Margaret Sullivan (4/3/22) aptly noted, hiring Mulvaney reveals
the news media’s blind and relentless pandering to the outdated notion that both sides of the aisle are pretty much equal…just with different governing philosophies.
Jay Rosen (PressThink, 9/25/16) : “A balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon distorts reality.”
The tendency to rely on “he said/she said” false equivalence has long stained professional news practices—simultaneously presenting a veneer of neutrality while also accentuating partisan conflict. But this practice is especially egregious now that the Republican Party has become an openly anti-democratic force, often supporting the “Big Lie” that the 2020 election was stolen, and refusing to properly condemn the January 6 insurrection and broader efforts to overturn election results—in some cases even encouraging them. The recent revelation that Sen. Mike Lee supported such attempts—a coup by any other name—barely registered with major television media.
News outlets have increasingly normalized this fascistic threat, at least partly because to call it out and condemn it—as news outlets would in any functioning democracy—counters a key cornerstone in the commercial media model. “Bothsidesism” is arguably one of the worst symptoms of our media’s structural pathologies. Fixating on access to official sources, this practice typically indexes media coverage to the parameters of elite opinion, and naturalizes status quo power relationships instead of challenging them.
To confront the GOP’s neofascist turn would amount to a departure that, in the words of media critic Jay Rosen (PressThink, 9/25/16), “fries the circuits of the mainstream press.” A profit-driven media so closely wedded to the political elites within a two-party system could never dare alienate a large swathe of Americans who ensure the ratings that advertisers covet.
Obsession with ratingsThe United States government spends 0.002% of its GDP on public media—vastly less than almost all other wealthy countries.
As former MSNBC producer Ariana Pekary (8/3/20) has publicly written, commercial media’s obsession with ratings warps and degrades media coverage. She described how it’s “practically baked into the editorial process,” but remains “taboo to discuss how the ratings scheme distorts content.”
Yet the damage is all around us. Ratings-driven news outlets focus more on facile coverage of pressing social issues—or provide no coverage at all—to privilege entertainment over information. This commercial logic drives media to emphasize dramatic and sensational storylines that keep our eyes glued to various screens, from online clickbait to cable television’s barking heads.
Several years ago, Chris Hayes made a revealing comment on Twitter (7/24/18) to this effect when he acknowledged that covering climate change is a “palpable ratings killer. So the incentives are not great”—which begs the observation that we must change the incentives driving our news media.
But why are commercial media so ratings-obsessed? It isn’t just a popularity contest, but rather stems from the core business model that undergirds the American media system: capturing our attention to deliver to advertisers. In the US, most commercial media organizations—from cable news to social media—rely on revenues from delivering eyes and ears to advertisers.
Even for many newspapers, it’s long been about an 80/20 split (80% from advertisers/20% from reader-support like subscriptions, though this ratio is changing with the collapse of ad revenue). At the same time, the US is almost literally off the chart compared to democracies around the globe for how little it allocates towards public media.
Captured by capitalismIs having democracy better than not having democracy? “Ethical journalism” doesn’t need to make this “subjective value judgment,” argues SPJ board member J. Israel Balderas (Twitter, 4/6/22).
Progressives often attribute mainstream media’s failings to its corporate ownership. While news media’s allegiance to corporate power deserves ruthless criticism, it’s also important to underscore how these pathologies are baked into the very DNA of a commercial press, resulting in media’s capture by unfettered capitalism.
Democratic theorists have long warned us against this kind of market censorship, a filtering process that creates patterns of omission and emphasis in which some voices and views are elevated, and others muffled, according to commercial values, especially the need for profit to satisfy media owners and investors. They rightly observe that much of this power traces back to the influence of advertising, which privileges some narratives and some audiences over others, thereby essentially redlining the news by serving whiter and wealthier audiences.
A commercial press that’s overly reliant on advertising revenue and “access journalism” based on elite sources, simply is—and always will be—ill-equipped to defend democracy. Despite noble exceptions, such a profit-first system will consistently marginalize progressive issues and favor news frames that align with elite interests and worldviews.
For many journalists who have internalized these norms—a code of professional ethics that traces back to the first half of the 20th century when publishers assumed a semblance of “social responsibility” to stave off public criticism of commercial excesses in the press—these practices are carried out in the name of objectivity. It’s this orientation that led a board member of the Society of Professional Journalists to recently suggest that journalists shouldn’t adopt a pro-democracy bias in reporting.
This commercial system’s shortcomings are symptomatic of core structural maladies—namely, profit imperatives that overwhelm commitments to democratic principles. It’s not simply a few bad journalists and news organizations; it is deeply systemic. While critiquing corporate media is an important exercise—public pressure can help push the needle toward more progressive and democratic narratives—at least part of our focus needs to be on apprehending and changing the underlying structures that help produce bad journalism.
Democratizing mediaThis media reform project is especially urgent now, as much of the professional journalism ranks have been decimated in the last two decades. Our long-term strategies for democratizing media should include building nonprofit and public alternatives to failing commercial models.
Today, exciting new experiments are taking root across the country—many are independent, grassroots-driven and noncommercial—but we still need a society-wide approach to ensure that all members of the public not only have access to reliable and diverse news and information, but also have opportunities to make their own media and tell their own stories. Ultimately, we must democratize our media, but first we must remove journalism from the market as much as possible.
This task of de-commercializing our media is made more feasible by the market itself, as profit-seeking entities (with the unfortunate exception of vulture hedge funds) abandon local journalism altogether. We’re faced with a historic opportunity to create a new media system from the ground up. It’s incumbent upon all of us who have a pro-democracy bias to work towards building true structural alternatives to the run-amok commercial system we’ve inherited in the US. Because what’s damn good for CBS is really bad for democracy."
"President Biden likes to say that we are locked in a global battle pitting democracy against autocracy.
In Seattle last week, he described a phone conversation he’d had with Xi Jinping in which the Chinese leader argued that democracy doesn’t work anymore. Among other things, Xi said, democracy requires consensus, and mustering a consensus takes too long in a fast-moving world. Only autocracies are equipped to meet the extraordinary challenges of modern times.
Biden, as he does every time he tells the story, dismissed the idea that democracy is passé or unworkable.
But I’ve begun to wonder whether Xi might be on to something.
We Americans often treat our liberal democracy as a national religion, and routinely assert, as if no evidence were needed, that it is the most moral, just, effective and admirable system on Earth.
But few would deny that there’s been some disturbing evidence to the contrary in recent years.
The Jan. 6 riot, of course, was a low point. Then there was the chaotic, inefficient, politicized response to the pandemic. The continuing legislative paralysis in Washington.
The strongest evidence of democracy’s weakness, however, has got to be the tepid U.S. response to climate change over the last 25 years.
An epochal, Earth-threatening catastrophe is barreling toward us, poised to upend life as we know it. As one of the world’s wealthiest countries and greatest historic emitters of carbon, we obviously should be leading an urgent and aggressive charge to protect the planet. But we’re not.
Why have we failed to rise to the occasion? One obvious reason is that our system allows the oil and gas industry to wield grossly disproportionate power — thanks to the way money distorts our politics. The top 10 fossil fuel industry contributors alone gave $60 million to candidates in the 2019-2020 election cycle.
Another reason is that in a democracy, elected officials have no incentive to support policies that require pain and sacrifice today in exchange for future gain. Pay twice as much for gas? Don’t drive? Don’t fly? In most cases, courageous politicians who supported such policies would be voted out of office.
What’s more, too many Americans believe the climate crisis is terribly exaggerated, despite a scientific consensus that it’s not. This anti-intellectual strain has always existed in American political culture, but the number of science-skeptical voters seems to have grown during the Trump years.
I mention climate change just as an example. It is just one small part of what ails our democratic system these days.
Even post-Trump, we face a deep, bitter, partisan polarization. A dysfunctional Congress. An ongoing effort to undermine the 2020 election. An assault on voting rights.
Add to that a host of long-standing structural problems.
A U.S. Senate in which tiny states like Wyoming, with 582,000 people, have the same representation and voting power as big states like California, with 39 million people.
A system that allows congressional district lines to be manipulated for partisan advantage.
Campaign finance laws that let mega-rich Americans and giant corporations spend unlimited amounts to influence elections.
An anachronistic electoral college and filibuster rules that are undermining the notion of majority rule.
And good luck fixing these problems. Making reforms and passing laws in a country this divided is extremely difficult, and amending the Constitution is nearly impossible. A newly empowered conservative Supreme Court won’t make it easier.
In recent years, Freedom House, which rates and ranks democracies around the world, has downgraded the U.S. so that it now ranks close to Panama and Romania, and 10 points below “traditional peers” such as the United Kingdom and Germany.
And it’s true that the United States has never lived up to its own lofty ideals. Liberty, equality, fairness, the evenhanded rule of law — these are aspirations, not yet achievements.
Given all this, is it any surprise that Xi and many others believe our system is dysfunctional?
But here’s the flip side: Despite democracy’s glaring flaws, autocracy isn’t the answer. Those who see hope in the Orbans, the Le Pens and the Trumps, much less in the Xis and Putins, should think again.
Freedom House, for the record, says China is “increasingly repressive” and is “tightening control over all aspects of life.” Describing Russia, Freedom House refers to “loyalist security forces, a subservient judiciary, a controlled media environment, and a legislature consisting of a ruling party and pliable opposition factions.”
These are not the conditions under which most people would choose to live. But beyond that, there’s no evidence — despite Xi’s assertions — that China or any other autocratic country has a much better track record on addressing climate change or solving its domestic problems.
“The problems attributed to democracy, particularly regarding crises like climate change, are real and worthy of concern — I lose sleep over them,” says Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard and co-author of “How Democracies Die.” “But the fact that democracies are bad at responding to serious challenges that require either rapid decision-making or long-term thinking does not mean autocracies are any better.”
Levitsky says that history is littered with disastrous authoritarian experiments and that Xi is not the first to claim his authoritarian system is better than democracy. The Soviets and the fascists said the same.
The unsatisfying reality is that democracy is difficult work. Americans need to fix the Senate. Disentangle money and campaigns. Ban gerrymandering. Restore democratic norms.
To do so, citizens must understand the issues, vote their consciences, agitate for change — and act cooperatively, even with opponents.
We have a long distance to go (and with regard to climate change, very little time).
But democracy is a long-term project. It doesn’t come wrapped in bright colors with a bow around it. You’ve got to fight for it."
"This is the fifth and final installment in amNewYork Metro’s five-part series examining the proliferation of grocery delivery services across the city, and how they treat their fleet of delivery workers.
Last year, as the pandemic swept New York City for the first time and forced businesses to close temporarily or altogether, there was one industry that seemed to be perfectly suited to survive: food delivery.
Demand for grocery delivery through apps like Instacart soared, and Bronx-based
New quick-commerce grocery delivery apps are at the nexus of those two markets. Companies like JOKR, Gorillas, and Fridge No More have expanded rapidly in the last year as they filled the demand for groceries delivered within fifteen minutes of placing the order via app, with low or nonexistent delivery fees and no order minimums.
At the center of all of those businesses, over the user experience of placing an order on an app or the variety of items available, are the delivery workers. Couriers zipping by on electric bicycles with an insulated bag strapped to their back have become ubiquitous in the city in the last decade, and now passers-by might be seeing a host of new uniforms and branded e-bikes as quick-commerce apps continue their steady march forward.
Those uniforms and e-bikes mark a stark contrast between apps like JOKR and Gorillas and UberEats. The majority of delivery workers who deliver for UberEats and DoorDash are contracted or “gig” workers — essentially freelancers. They pick up work when it’s available, but aren’t employed by the company formally — there’s no guarantee of hours, wages, tips, no time off or benefits.
At most of the new grocery delivery apps, couriers are full or part-time employees, with set schedules and, in some cases, benefits.
“Unlike many delivery and on-demand service companies, all our workers are full-time and part-time W2 workers who are provided minimum wage on an hourly basis,” a Gorillas spokesperson said. “On top of that, they receive 100% of their digital tips at the end of each month, and customers are made aware of this at every transaction. In addition to compensation, they’re entitled to workplace benefits, paid breaks in compliance with local regulations, and the opportunity to return to the warehouse to refresh after each delivery.”
Gorillas riders are also provided with a company e-bike and gear including helmets, riding gloves, and a vest, according to their website. ...
Demand for fair working conditions and more protections under the law exploded last year, driven mostly by Los Deliveristas Unidos, a collective of mostly-immigrant delivery workers who banded together as they worked long, difficult hours through the pandemic without the protection or hazard pay offered to so many essential workers
NYC Food Delivery Workers Band to Demand Better Treatment. Will New York...
Manny Ramirez, a delivery worker and organizer with LDU, helped his fellow workers fix their brake pads and make other repairs on their bicycles at a vigil and bike tune-up on Tuesday. He was assaulted twice this year, he said, once violently.
He immediately called LDU’s policy director Hildalyn Colón Hernández and the police, he said, who came immediately to take a report. In the past – before the Deliveristas had gained so much attention — it was hard to be taken seriously.
“Calling 911 for any emergency, they never came,” he said. “If they did come, they refused to write a report.”
Protections for workersThe biggest accomplishment, though, has been the passage of a package of bills promising more protections in the city council, including requiring companies to provide their delivery workers with the insulated bags they need for delivery, mandating that restaurants allow gig workers to use their restrooms, allowing delivery workers to set limits for how far they are willing to go to make a delivery, and providing a clear breakdown to customers of how their tips were being distributed.
“There’s gonna be improved enforcement next year, but it helps, it helps,” Ramirez said, of the bills. “Baby steps, little by little.”
From their inception, some of the apps have abided by the rules set by the council bills, providing gear, paying at least minimum wage to their employees, and, in some cases, providing a breakdown of tip distribution on the apps. Given the small delivery radius of each dark store, riders have shorter routes back and forth.
Josh, an organizer and delivery worker with LDU who asked not to use his last name, said he has met some people who work with quick-commerce apps. Many of the struggles are the same, he said, but “it’s a different job.”
“They get their own bikes, they get a more stable wage than we do,” he said. “The Gorillas bike is supplied by the company, a lot less likely to get stolen because they are tracked.”
But just being an employee, rather than a contractor, doesn’t guarantee better treatment, Colón said.
“I think that is a false promise,” she said. “You’re part-time, or you’re earning minimum wage. But the work that they do, they should be earning even more. Just the idea that they are employees doesn’t mean that they don’t deal with issues of disqualifications, non-transparency, tips that get stolen.”
When delivery is slow or items are damaged, it’s the delivery worker who takes the brunt of the customer’s unhappiness, she said, not the company.
Gorillas workers in Berlin, where the company was founded, were fired last month after taking part in wildcat strikes calling for better treatment, saying workers are often underpaid and are not provided with appropriate weather gear. German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported that many Gorillas workers work on contracts, not as employees, and that many are injured on the job while carrying heavy deliveries up apartment staircases.
The Gorillas Workers Collective have posted photos of broken bicycles and screenshots they say show long hours worked and more than 50 miles covered by bike in a single day.
It’s unclear whether the council bills apply to the new grocery delivery apps, since they are not third party and are by and large working with employees rather than contractors.
“I think they don’t qualify on those grounds, on not being a third-party service,” a Council staffer said. “I think the language in the bills is individually portioned food. If you’re not delivering for something more like a restaurant or a deli, even, then those services may not be covered even if they were a third party.”
Having the laws on the books may influence companies to adopt the policies even if they don’t apply, the staffer said.
“They may be worried the public will see those things as best practices they ought to be following, they may also be concerned that legislation may come down the pipe if we start having problems with them, stuff like that.”
Ultimately, Colón said, “there’s no minimum” for how delivery workers should be treated, regardless of the company they deliver for and the status of their employment. The conversation, she said, has only just started.
“It cannot be a race to the bottom,” Colón said. “It has to be a race to the top. It’s about the people. All of the technologies you will see doesn’t matter if you just click a button. There’s human beings doing this, it doesn’t just happen.”
