This is truly painful since I am neither a fan of Donald Trump or beauty pageants, but here it is: Is it possible that the actions taken against not just Donald Trump but his business associations are excessive? NBC has issued a statement that it will no longer air the Miss USA and Miss Universe pageants and that Trump will no longer participate in “The Celebrity Apprentice.” (Univision previously banned the pageant as did Televise. Mexico swore not to send its contestant to the pageant). Now many people have long advocated a Dump the Trump position because they view him as an obnoxious self-caricature. However, NBC is now dropping its association with Trump because he said highly negative things about border illegal aliens at a political event. [Now Macy’s has joined the corporate Dump Trump movement]
One could understand dropping a personality from a show like “The Celebrity Apprentice” over public comments, but the network is shooting shows that are connected Trump’s business interests. It seems odd to pull the plug on the Miss USA and Miss Universe contestants solely because the events is connected financially to someone who has controversial political views. The Miss USA contestants expected to appear on NBC on July 12 from Baton Rouge. The network has aired the program for the last 11 years.
Trump created a firestorm in announcing his candidacy on June 16th for President in discussing illegal immigration. He said:
“The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems. … When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,” said Trump. “They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
I can certainly see the basis for the outcry in labeling the population of illegal immigrants as rapists and criminals (except for “some” who may be “good people”). The question is whether businesses should be punished for the political views of their CEOs or leadership. We have been discussing the increasing private sanctions for unpopular speech — the so-called “Little Brother” problem. It bears some resemblance to the Chick-Fil-A controversy after Chick-Fil-A president Dan Cathy made anti-gay comments. The question is why it is appropriate to punish an entire business — and its employees and customers — because you disagree with the political or religious views of an owner or executive. Where should be draw the line? I can see the basis for severing Trump as an on-air personality over public comments deemed offensive but is it appropriate to bar shows that happen to be financially supported by Trump?
It seems to me that, if NBC is going to bar shows due to the views of business executives, it should do so uniformly. Many CEOs hold views that can be criticized as offensive by one group or another. Is NBC going to impose a uniform speech code for businesses funding programs? The alternative is to separate the political views of business people from their products or programs, particularly when those products or programs do not in any way reflect the views.
What do you think?
Source: Hollywood Reporter
You get some great reporting from news sources when it is about rival news sources.
I saw an informative report on Anderson Coopers show on CNN last night. Unlike many contracts, the contract between NBC and Trump has no personal behavior, embarrassment clauses. Additionally, in 2011 Trump made virtually the same comments about Mexicans in a televised interview and NBC made no comments and took no actions. So, there is a very good chance a-hole NBC will be paying a-hole Trump a large chunk of cash.
“PS: Republicans complained that senators and representatives voted for Obamacare without reading what was in it. Well, if that was a principle, and not just a statement of convenience, why are they now voting for Fast Track without first reading the treaty”
Shadow,
I haven’t been following the TPP very well; my first instinct is to follow the money. My second instinct is to find out what concessions were made between the White House and Congress that would make them see “eye to eye”. Lastly, I would follow the money.
Trump is suing NBC Univision for $500 million. For violating his freedom of speech.
I guess Trump wants to be treated equally as Al Sharpton at NBC when it comes to motor mouthing. Will this go to the US Supreme Court for a decision?
As to Propoganda and “Corporatism, have you seen the proposed Copyright rules in the TPP.
“Intermediary Copyright Enforcement
As the document below describes, countries around the Pacific rim are being pressured to agree to proposed text for the TPP that would require them to adopt a facsimile of the DMCA to regulate the take-down of material hosted online, upon the mere allegation of copyright infringement by a claimed rights-holder. Indeed, industry lobbyists are pushing for an even stricter regime, dubbed “notice and staydown”, that would make it harder than ever before for users and innovators to safely publish creative, transformational content online.”
And the U.S. is pressuring members to extend their copyright periods to match its.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/dozens-organizations-and-businesses-protest-tpp-copyright-proposals
PS: Republicans complained that senators and representatives voted for Obamacare without reading what was in it. Well, if that was a principle, and not just a statement of convenience, why are they now voting for Fast Track without first reading the treaty?
Karen S
1, July 1, 2015 at 12:27 am
“All the major political parties seem to be in someone’s pocket. Each owes different players, but there is some overlap, and they all owe someone a favor. Monsanto appears to have bought everyone. Throughout several parties holding office, it has infiltrated the very departments meant to oversee its operation.”
Although I recently purchased it, I haven’t yet had time to read Ralph Nader’s latest book,
Unstoppable:The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State.
Here a brief overview of it in case you or anyone else reading these comments wants to check it out:
“Ralph Nader has fought for over fifty years on behalf of American citizens against the reckless influence of corporations on our society. At this pivotal political moment, Americans are more disillusioned with their political leaders than ever. Large majorities tell pollsters that big corporations have too much political power. The ever tightening influence of big business on the mainstream media, elections and our local, state and federal governments, have caused many Americans to believe they have no political voice.
“In Unstoppable, Nader ramps up the fight and makes a hugely persuasive case that American citizens are not powerless. Unstoppable is about the emerging political re-alignment that is combining the Left and the Right against converging corporate-government tyranny. Large segments from the progressive, conservative, and libertarian political camps find themselves aligned in opposition to the destruction of civil liberties, the bloated and economically draining corporate welfare state, the relentless perpetuation of America’s wars, sovereignty-shredding free trade agreements, and the unpunished crimes of Wall Street against Main Street. These are all issues that can be traced back to the growing influence of corporate goliaths and their ability to combine forces with indentured government against the interests of the broader public.
“Nader draws on half a century of his own experience working with the grassroots and Congress and tells of many surprising victories that have united progressive and conservative forces. As a participator in and keen observer of these budding alliances, he breaks new ground in showing how these coalitions can overcome specific obstacles that divide and rule them and expand their power on Capitol Hill, in the courts, and in the arena of public opinion.
“Nader provides a blueprint for how Americans on both sides of the aisle can fight against the corporate state and crony capitalism. Nader shows how they can reclaim their right to consume safe foods and drugs, breathe clean air, receive fair rewards for their work, regain control of taxpayer assets, and achieve a more self-reliant economy.
“Far from espousing ‘let’s meet half-way’ type compromises, Nader argues that it is in the interest of citizens of different political labels to join in the struggle against the corporate state that will, if left unchecked, ruin the Republic, shred our constitution, and stampede over the rights of the American people.”
http://www.politics-prose.com/book/v/9781568584546
Just would like to add that Sweden , once the country that the left loved to point to as an ideal model, is having major issues now. Most of which is pinpointed at the immigration policy that is allowing the country to be flooded.
Yet this guy is still employed by NBC. Says it all dont ya think?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B8Itz02lqY
DBQ – it’s hot here, too, but only 95. But there are storm clouds on the horizon so it’s muggy. I didn’t ride or venture outside much, and the house is hot. So I’m here with cabin fever, PLUS I’ve drunk an entire inch of wine. I get tipsy off of a thimbleful and rarely drink, so I should step away from the keyboard!
Ken:
“‘Today’s ruling spotlights how these so called “trade” deals are packed with non-trade provisions that threaten our most basic rights, such as even knowing the source and safety of what’s on our dinner plate.’ A May 2013 survey by the Consumer Federation of America found that 90% of adult Americans favored this ‘country-of-origin’ requirement.”
I agree. There are many forces at work to interfere with informed consumer choice. That’s one of the essential principals of the modern free market: the consumer gets to vote with his dollars based on accurate information, and basic regulations makes those choices reasonably safe. But politicians, special interests, and some heavy hitter corporations (like Monsanto, damn their eyes), try to interfere with that informed decision. If they were so proud of their product, whether it be meat or produce, then a manufacturer would proudly stand behind it and welcome consumer choice. That’s what reputable companies do who create products that they are proud of: they inform the customer about why their product is superior and then awaits their decision.
All the major political parties seem to be in someone’s pocket. Each owes different players, but there is some overlap, and they all owe someone a favor. Monsanto appears to have bought everyone. Throughout several parties holding office, it has infiltrated the very departments meant to oversee its operation.
I think abolishing the practice of bundling and mandatory political contributions would take care of large organizations buying favors at the expense of the public, whether it’s Monsanto (damn their eyes) or unions or an unethical corporation. And I absolutely oppose any trade agreement that interferes with our sovereignty. There are several aspects of the WTO that greatly concern me on those grounds. The link I posted from the Department of Agriculture itself indicated that the WTO has us over a barrel.
Large companies are not inherently good or evil; they are only as benign as the people who run them. I’ve known wealthy business owners who do so much for charity and for their employees, and I’ve seen unethical business owners. The campaign finance reform that I mentioned will hopefully prevent any company or entity from having undue influence on any politician or policy.
Money and politics should not mix.
Perhaps enough information will come out that this will be a crucible for reform.
“For too long, the world has emptied its sewers into this country……”
And where did your ancestors come from?
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
1, June 30, 2015 at 1:17 pm
“@Ken Rogers
“I am pleased that you chose to present this quote from Bernays!”
I’m glad that you were already familiar with Bernays and that you posted the link to his book, Propaganda.
I hope it enjoys a wider and much-needed readership as a result of your posting the link to it here, with the result that more people will realize how they’re being manipulated and managed by their corporatist government and its propaganda ministry, the corporate media.
For too long, the world has emptied its sewers into this country, and the tide ought to be not merely stemmed, but reversed. Enoch Powell years ago, warned England of the ruinous effects of immigration and its handmaiden, socialism. His reward was to have his party turn their backs on him – but everything he predicted has come about. Over here, Eisenhower said: ‘Round them up, and throw them out.’ This ought to have been – and should still be – the only policy on illegal immigration.
It was never the intention of the founders of this country to have a dog’s breakfast of a population. (What a superb place this would be if it were like Greenwich or Darien before the war!)
“I wish they all could be California girls.”
Nick,
That is a micro-aggression and I’m offended. 😉
Karen S
1, June 30, 2015 at 1:06 pm
“Ken – the globalization of work forces has had a devastating impact. It was supposed to improve the economies of other countries, but it ended up driving all manufacturing and a lot of customer service and other jobs out of our country.
“Oh, and because I can turn any argument into a non sequitur about organic, American big ag grows some of its products overseas using pesticides that are banned here, and just imports the produce.”
I don’t see that as a non sequitur at all, Karen. Here’s another, similar, example of the expanding power of Corporatism to jeopardize the safety of the food we eat:
“I challenge President Obama to state publically that he has read the entire Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Even a benign monarch would do this for his/her trusting subjects.
“Inside these hundreds of pages of cross references and repeals of conflicting existing laws is the central subversion, subordinating our protective laws for labor, consumers and the environment (impersonally called ‘non-tariff trader barriers’) to the supremacy of international global commercial traffic.
“One very recent example – by no means the worst possible – just occurred. After Congress passed a popular ‘country-of-origin’ labeling requirement on meat packages sold in supermarkets, Brazil and Mexico, both exporters of meat to the U.S.A, challenged this U.S. law in a secret (yes, literally secret in all respects) tribunal in Geneva under the World Trade Organization [WTO] Treaty. Brazil and Mexico won this legal challenge.
“ ‘Many Americans will be shocked that the WTO can order our government to deny U.S. consumers the basic information about where their food comes from and that if the information policy is not gutted, we could face millions in sanctions every year,’ said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. ‘Today’s ruling spotlights how these so called “trade” deals are packed with non-trade provisions that threaten our most basic rights, such as even knowing the source and safety of what’s on our dinner plate.’ A May 2013 survey by the Consumer Federation of America found that 90% of adult Americans favored this ‘country-of-origin’ requirement.
“Fearing billions of dollars in penalties, the U.S. Congress is racing to repeal its own law. See how the noose works: foreign countries trying to pull down our higher standards can take conflicts to secret tribunals with three trade judges, who also have corporate clients and can say to the U.S., ‘Get rid of your protections or pay billions of dollars in tribute.’ “
https://blog.nader.org/2015/06/25/king-obama-his-royal-court-and-the-tpp/
Thanks Nick
I don’t know what it is like in Karen’s end of the State, but it is over 100 degrees AGAIN and expected to be this way for the next week or more. Not our usual and not usually so hot for so many days in a row. I’ve got cabin fever…..too hot to go outside except in the early early morning or late late afternoons. So other than mowing and watering this AM and doing household chores to stay out of the heat….I’m BORED. Inside the house. Trapped! This is why you see me posting more than usual. TRAPPED I TELL YOU!
Ken,
Character matters. If the actions of an employee reflect negatively on the employer then the employer should have the right to terminate that employee. If the employer merely has issues with the political position of the employee and they terminate the employee, then they are making a political decision and not a business decision; unless of course they are making the political decision to protect their business interests.
If Trump or anyone reflects negatively on NBC and they make the call to terminate him to protect their business then I support that. However, if NBC is terminating him to appease their audience’s political interests then I question their character. In the news business I expect them to provide the unvarnished truth and let me decide the character of who is being reported on. That is difficult to find these days.
I think it is highly insensitive to ask Hillary to speak from the heart, her having only a mechanical one and no conscience.
Karen and DBQ have shown brilliantly today. “I wish they all could be California girls.”
Well, then we are in agreement. Game, Set, Match.