The Media Issue

The midterm elections are just over two months away, and Donald Trump appears to be on his way to a stinging defeat.

But there’s one big problem that’s keeping me up at night: Republicans are STILL running circles around Democrats on the big social media platforms where Americans increasingly get their news.

Let me explain.

Four in 10 young people regularly get their news from YouTube, and a recent study found that Republicans outnumber Democrats by a nearly 2 to 1 margin among the top 100 biggest political YouTube channels.

It’s a similar story on TikTok, where Fox News’ account has exploded from 500,000 followers to nearly 11 million in less than two years. The situation is even worse on Facebook and Twitter/X.

You might be wondering, why is this such a big problem? Especially if Democrats are already leading in the polls? 

I’ll tell you why. Because while people like you and me might follow the news closely on a regular basis, most voters haven’t even begun to tune in to the midterms — and if all they see on social media between now and Election Day are MAGA talking points, the encouraging polls we’re seeing now won’t matter at all.

The good news is that the team here at Inequality Media Civic Action has spent years building our audience on these platforms, and since the start of 2026, our YouTube views have more than doubled to over 10 million a month.

Robert Reich.

 

Trump's Caravan Destroyed the Reflective Pool ; not vandals

 

President Donald Trump's motorcade drove directly across the drained floor of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool on May 7, 2026. He made the unannounced visit to inspect a newly painted, bright "American flag blue" coating applied during a $16 million renovation project. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Media dominance

 First, some background. Twenty years ago, the best way to communicate with voters was through TV, radio, and newspapers, and Democrats were pretty good at it. 

But today, everything has changed. A majority of swing voters now get their news from social media, podcasts, and YouTube.

And on these platforms, Democrats are getting absolutely steamrolled.

Four of the top ten news podcasts on Spotify right now are hosted by right-wing extremists, like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens. The White House’s rapid response Twitter/X account is five times bigger than the DNC’s. Of the 100 largest political YouTube channels, 64 of them are conservative.

On Facebook, Twitter/X, TikTok, you name it … Republicans are running circles around Democrats, and that could cost us the entire midterm election.

Robert Reich, 

Billionaire blitz: Steyer’s $132 million campaign dwarfs rivals in California governor race

 Billionaire blitz: Steyer’s $132 million campaign dwarfs rivals in California governor race 

 

https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/04/california-governor-race-financials/

 

In summary

San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan dominated fellow Democrats in fundraising, bringing in $13 million. Katie Porter raised $2.8 million, Xavier Becerra brought in $1 million, Antonio Villaraigosa raised $707,000 and Tony Thurmond raised just $62,000. 

With so many candidates running for governor, it’s hard to keep up. We’re here to help: Sign up for our 2026 election newsletter to get the latest on the candidates.

Tom Steyer, the billionaire environmental activist and self-styled progressive candidate for governor, is on track to run the most expensive gubernatorial campaign in state history, having already spent more than $132 million. 

He’s saturated the Internet and TV as special interest groups ramp up advertising of their own ahead of the June 2 primary and county officials prepare to mail out ballots. 

Campaign finance disclosures filed late Thursday show that through mid-April, Steyer continued to outspend his opponents twenty- to thirty-fold, mostly to blitz the state with television ads that began airing early in the race. Nearly all of the money came from Steyer personally, $105 million of which he poured into the campaign from January through April 18.

Trump's Assault on Democratic Media

Last fall, Donald Trump signed a terrifying presidential directive called NSPM-7, ordering the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies to investigate and disrupt progressive organizations and activists as potential “domestic terrorists.”

Now Trump is asking Congress to provide a huge increase in funding to ramp up the NSPM-7 crackdown.

This comes after the New York Times reported that the IRS and FBI have formed a joint task force under NSPM-7 to “attack the funding” of progressive groups, and leaked emails from inside the FBI indicate that state and local police are being enlisted to target progressive groups as well.

Friends, this is one of the biggest threats to democracy that almost no one is talking about.

The corporate media are so cowed by Trump’s bullying that they’ve barely even mentioned NSPM-7, so Inequality Media Civic Action is using our massive following across social media to sound the alarm and demand that Congress reject funding for these attacks on our First Amendment rights.

Under NSPM-7, the Justice Department is directed to create a secret list of organizations and individuals who hold any one of a long list of vaguely defined left-of-center views, including “anti-capitalism,” “anti-Americanism,” “extremism on migration, race, and gender,” or opposition to “traditional American views on family.”

Trump’s budget proposal further states that counterterrorism funding will be used to target progressives who “exploit a variety of popular social media platforms, smaller websites with targeted audiences, and encrypted chat applications.”

In other words, if you’re on the internet and oppose Trump’s agenda in any way, you could be on Trump’s secret domestic terrorist blacklist and get a knock on the door from the FBI.

These are the actions of an unhinged authoritarian dictator, and Trump must be stopped.

Unfortunately, the corporate media has been utterly silent about the threat of NSPM-7, so we’re ramping up our public education campaign and mobilizing opposition to Trump’s massive new funding request to implement this draconian assault on speech.

Robert Reich, 

This is how democracies are killed.

The Media Pile On

 

Joe Biden is being treated far worse than Donald Trump by the two institutions critical for deciding the outcome of the 2024 election — the political parties and the media. 

The Republican Party has closed ranks around Trump -- despite the fact he’s a convicted felon, twice-impeached conman, sexual abuser, fraudulent businessman, self-described aspiring dictator for a day, pathological liar, and ringleader of an attempted coup against the United States. 

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party is in a panic about Biden. Many party insiders are trying to force Biden out now, at the last minute, because he had a bad debate performance. 

Democratic leaders in Congress are telling their members they should “feel free to take whatever position about Biden’s candidacy is best for their district,” according to people involved in the conversations. For some, this means blasting Biden’s debate performance and calling on him to withdraw or suggest he seriously consider it. 

The media is just as bad. It has normalized Trump's non-stop lies during the debate as “old news.” Rather than treat those lies as further evidence of his proven dishonesty and criminality — and that another term of him at the helm will ruin the country — the media has focused on Biden’s halting speech and vacant gaze as evidence he’s incapable of running the country. 

Almost every member of the chattering class says Biden must go. None says Trump must go. 

They say Biden has another — perhaps “last” — chance this evening when he’s interviewed by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. 

But even if Biden is coherent tonight, I doubt it will stop the uproar because the uproar feeds on itself: Some of it may be responsible for Biden’s waning polls. If Biden decides to stay in the race, the tumult will hurt his chances even more. 

All of this demonstrates the discipline of authoritarianism and the messiness of democracy. But that’s the nature of these two systems. Authoritarian fascism, such as Trump and his coterie are now peddling, is even more disciplined. 

All over the world (except in the UK), voters are choosing discipline over messiness, authoritarianism over democracy. 

To restate the obvious, we are living in dangerous times. 

Robert Reich 

What About President Biden ?

 I want to take the time to disagree with the several people writing here saying that Biden should drop out.

 

For Biden to leave, there must be a viable, organizational response capable of defeating Trump and the MAGA crowd. 

Newsletters and posts will not do that.  There have to be constituencies engaged. 

This is not a skill that the Democratic Party is skilled with. 

 

This week I have been to a civil rights group meeting, and to children’s soccer.  Neither were discussion the Biden debate performance.  Mostly, we were complaining about the heat. 

 

Too much of the commentary urging Biden to leave is based upon rumor, and anonymous sources.  

When you get to actual sources, look at what was actually said.  NBC and MSNBC made big issues about what Nany Pelosi said, and what  Congressman Clyburn.      said.  Look at what was actually said. These were not calls for Biden to leave.  The press responses are over interpretations.  They are seeking to create a story, create news, which also creates  an electoral crisis. 

There is a valuable poll out today in the NYT. 

 

I don’t think we should make decisions based upon what Democrats can do ( alone). Alone, they can not defeat Trump. 

 

I encourage you to read Kim Atkins Stohr, Boston Globe.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/07/01/opinion/biden-democrats-drop-out-race/

 

Biden dropping out is a fantasy. Democrats can win — if they fight !

 

I encourage all to read Rand Wilson, Election 2024: A Chess Move, Not a Valentine. From the Stansbury Forum and Portside.

https://portside.org/2024-06-29/election-2024-chess-move-not-valentine

 

What we need to be working on is defeating Trump and the MAGAs.  That requires unity, and institutional power, among other things.  Wilson describes it well. 

 

Now, he may drop out as some are cheering.  If that happens, our tasks of defeating the Trump MAGA crowd grow exponentially. 

MOST CAMPUS PROTESTERS AREN’T EXTREMISTS, BUT THE EXTREMISTS HAVE SEIZED THE NARRATIVE, THANKS TO THE MEDIA

  

 

 

https://www.dsanorthstar.org/blog/most-campus-protesters-arent-extremists-but-the-extremists-have-seized-the-narrative-thanks-to-the-media

 

MOST CAMPUS PROTESTERS AREN’T EXTREMISTS, BUT THE EXTREMISTS HAVE SEIZED THE NARRATIVE, THANKS TO THE MEDIA

 

By Peter Dreier

On our blog. 

 

It is hard to find an objective analysis of the ongoing student protests about Israel and Palestine – which so far have taken place on over 50 campuses and led to over 2,000 arrests --  or the wider war that has provoked the demonstrations. Here are some thoughts:  

 

1. Most of the student protesters want an end to the horrific violence and violations of basic human rights (housing, health care, food) that they see on TV and on social media every day. 

 

2. Most protesters don’t support Hamas (a theocratic, anti-women and anti-LGBTQ terrorist organization) or want to see  the mass murder or exile of Israeli Jews. Still, a small fraction of protesters do support Hamas.  For example, when the  national office of Students for Justice in Palestine called Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israel "a historic win for the Palestinian resistance," and when 34 Harvard student organizations issued a joint statement saying they "hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence," that can reasonably be interpreted as support for Hamas.  These views are often what the media reports and what gets the headlines. Most news outlets, particularly TV, are suckers for extremism. 

 

3.  Most of the protesters want an end to the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and to Israel’s widespread discrimination against its Palestinian citizens. They want equality and peaceful co-existence between Jews and Palestinians. They want Netanyahu gone, but they don’t know enough about Israeli politics to know what kind of government might replace him and his government. They don’t have clear or well-reasoned thoughts on the end-game, such as what to do when the Gaza war is over. But neither do most well-informed experts. I favor a two-state solution and many of the protesters I’ve talked to share some vague idea that this would be a good idea, but they don’t understand much about Israel-Palestine history or the real options. They don't know about the Israeli peace movement or groups like Standing Together, founded by Israeli Jews and Palestinians to work toward mutual understand, justice, and peace. They don't understand the geo-politics of the Middle East and what it would take to forge a real peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians that would require pressure from other Arab governments, the US, the EU, and the UN to allow self-governance for both Jews and Palestinians. 

 

 

4.  I don’t deny the existence of campus anti-Semitism nor do I deny that it has been increasing.  Anti-Semitism is not the same as anti-Zionism, but sometimes the two overlap.  When Jewish students hear slogans like “intifada forever,”  “Zionists don’t belong here,” or  “Settlers, Settlers Go Back Home,  Palestine Is Ours Alone,”  they aren’t unreasonable to view them as attacks on Jews.  When protesters tell Jewish students to “go back to Poland,” when they see swastikas on campus buildings, or view the poster of UC-Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chermininsky that calls him a “Zionist” and depicts him with flood on his knife and folks “while Gaza starves,” they recognize it as anti-Jewish bigotry.  Such incidents  only have to happen once and they can be hard to forget. 

 

More: 

 

https://www.dsanorthstar.org/blog/most-campus-protesters-arent-extremists-but-the-extremists-have-seized-the-narrative-thanks-to-the-media

 

 

 

Sidelining Scientists Can Only Make COVID-19 Worse

Sidelining Scientists Can Only Make COVID-19 Worse
Michael Halpern
February 28, 2020
Scientific American


We need to hear about the risks directly from the experts, not through the filter of politicians


Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Mark Wilson Getty Images

In 1918, World War I was raging, and the Spanish flu arrived on American shores. But the Sedition Act banned communications that might undermine the war effort, including information that might slow down the movement of people or goods.

In that political climate, “public health officials, determined to keep morale up, began to lie,” wrote John Barry in Smithsonian magazine. “Each day the disease accelerated. Each day newspapers assured readers that influenza posed no danger.” Congress repealed the Sedition Act in 1920, but the damage was done. Hundreds of thousands of people in the United States would eventually die from the disease.

Over the next century, we developed complex disease monitoring systems. We created best practices for communicating disease risk. And we invested in the independence of government agencies, empowering government experts to openly share information about public health dangers.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are now well practiced at risk communication. A 65-page manual details how the agency should communicate during a health crisis like the one we currently face. That’s why it’s so troubling that the White House has taken over communication around the coronavirus COVID-19.

While this move would be worrisome under any president, this administration creates unique challenges. Under this president, global disease surveillance systems were weakened, research programs were abandoned, and senior global health experts left the government. The president’s budget requests routinely seek extreme cuts at federal health agencies, including CDC. In the midst of this leadership vacuum, the president will say whatever he wants about virtually any topic without evidence, sometimes even contradicting the experts standing at his side.

There are echoes of 1918. The Washington Post reported that a government employee faced retaliation for raising concerns about unsafe assessment of potentially-infected individuals. The New York Times reported that public communications about the virus from CDC scientists will need “clearance.”

Senior NIH official and physician-scientist Anthony Fauci had to cancel several television appearances after the vice president took over the response effort. Fauci has said that he was not gagged, and we should take him at his word. But let me be clear: under no circumstances should the distribution of public health information be subject to White House or any other political clearance.

Open communication is not just good practice; it’s also policy. CDC’s (now archived) media policy puts the agency’s scientific staff in control of clearance of information. The CDC’s scientific integrity policy promotes sharing scientific information “in an open, timely, and appropriate way.”The coronavirus is moving rapidly across the globe. Our response must be focused and clear, prioritizing public health rather than fluctuations in financial markets or political advantage. We should hear directly from the experts, not just from political appointees with a political axe to grind.

Sadly, high-ranking officials continue to confuse the public. On February 28, White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney suggested the media has an agenda. “The reason you’re seeing so much attention to it today is that they think this is what’s going to bring down the president,” he told a conference audience. “That’s what this is all about.” If millions of Americans are misled about the seriousness of this threat, we’re in real trouble. 

Naomi Klein's Message to the Media Covering Houston:

A New Narrative for Public Education ?

Jeff Bryant, 

An Old Story 

For decades, politicians have told the easy story that our public schools were “broken,” that they lacked “accountability,” and that the way to “fix” them was to impose mandatory outcomes – higher test scores and graduation rates – that would be evidence of better “results.” Now we know that story was flawed.

Today, we have reams and reams of test data and record-high high school graduation rates, but the rage over education policy burns hotter than it has in over 50 years, and more school districts are on the brink of total calamity every day.

Republicans want to tell a new story about schools as consumer products that will improve when “customers” have more “choice” imposed by the private sector and big business. It’s not a terribly new story. It’s also, frankly, an abdication of leadership, suggesting that these folks really have no idea how to provide for better schools so they’ll make parents fight it out for themselves, despite the obvious dearth of high quality choices already in the system.

Democrats, on the other hand, don’t’ really seem to have a story to tell about public education. But fortunately, a new narrative is emerging from sources outside the usual think tanks and policy shops.

The Emerging New Narrative 

This new narrative is familiar to parents and educators and anyone who can reflect on their own education journey: that every child has the innate ability to learn, that access to education opportunity is an inalienable right, and that it is incumbent on government to provide education opportunities as a common good, free and accessible to all.

Democratic Socialism in the Media

Socialism, democratic socialism, totalitarian communism, social democracy . . . these terms are being thrown around a lot right now. People are asking what they really mean.

Can you help me sustain interest in this topic? How do we keep people talking about democratic socialism at their dinner tables and in break rooms in a way that is not immediately and inherently negative?

I was on C-Span’s “Washington Journal” this week taking calls from around the country about democratic socialism. Here’s a short example of what we discussed:

Caller: “It comes down to the philosophical basis of your theory. Socialism requires that you take from some and give to the others. What is your philosophical basis for being able to do that?”

My response: “I would just say that that’s what’s happening right now under capitalism, from the bank bailouts to Walmart. Anybody that works really hard for a boss who pays them very little and takes a lot of money in, knows that that’s taking from some to give to others.”

One reason Bernie appeals to so many people is his ability to speak about democratic socialism in a language people understand. I tried to do the same.

The clip is almost a full hour, but I encourage you to watch it and also share it with your friends! Post on Facebook, tweet from Twitter, email or even just gather family around your computer.

Click here to watch the video.

What the media avoids about the Vergara decision

Diane Ravitch.
http://dianeravitch.net/2014/06/11/were-the-vergara-trial-teachers-grossly-ineffective-no/

When the Pundits Misrepresent Public School Issues

By Jeff Bryant

Government funding for public schools has been cut so dramatically that now most states are funding schools less than before the recession.

Legend has, political disputes are supposed to be resolvable only when parties “meet in the middle” and shake hands on points of agreement that are possible.

But in the much-contested issue of “education reform,” only one of the disputing parties in the debate tends to be implored to seek compromise.

What this looks like in one of the nation’s largest school district, Los Angeles, came to the attention of many recently when a Facebook campaign led by a local teacher provided a cavalcade of photographs showing the deplorable conditions of that city’s public schools. “The images,” reported the Los Angeles Times, include missing ceiling tiles, broken sinks and water fountains, ant invasions, dead roaches and rat droppings.”

New Data Shows School 'Reformers' Are Getting it Wrong | Perspectives, What Matters Today | BillMoyers.com

New Data Shows School 'Reformers' Are Getting it Wrong | Perspectives, What Matters Today | BillMoyers.com

David Sirota.

Meanwhile, despite the fact that many “reformers’” policies have spectacularly failed, prompted massive scandals and/or offered no actual proof of success, an elite media that typically amplifies — rather than challenges — power and money loyally casts “reformers’” systematic pillaging of public education as laudable courage (the most recent example of this is Time magazine’s cover cheering on wildly unpopular Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel after he cited budget austerity to justify the largest mass school closing in American history — all while he is also proposing to spend $100 million of taxpayer dollars on a new private sports stadium).

In other words, elite media organizations (which, in many cases, have their own vested financial interest in education “reform”) go out of their way to portray the anti-public-education movement as heroic rather than what it really is: just another get-rich-quick scheme shrouded in the veneer of altruism.

That gets to the news that exposes “reformers’” schemes — and all the illusions that surround them. According to a new U.S. Department of Education study, “about one in five public schools was considered high poverty in 2011… up from about one in eight in 2000.” This followed an earlier study from the department finding that “many high-poverty schools receive less than their fair share of state and local funding… leav(ing) students in high-poverty schools with fewer resources than schools attended by their wealthier peers.”

Those data sets powerfully raise the question that “reformers” are so desperate to avoid: Are we really expected to believe that it’s just a coincidence that the public education and poverty crises are happening at the same time? Put another way: Are we really expected to believe that everything other than poverty is what’s causing problems in failing public schools?

Chicago Teachers Give Us All a Lesson

Two-thirds of parents supported the Chicago school teachers' protest in spite of the inconvenience caused by the strike.

by Dean Baker

We don't know the final terms of the settlement yet,
but it appears that the Chicago public school teachers
managed to score a major victory over Rahm Emanuel,
Chicago's business- oriented mayor. Testing will not
comprise as large a share in teachers' evaluations as
Emanuel had wanted; there will be a serious appeals
process for teachers whom the school district wants to
fire, and laid off teachers will have priority in
applying for new positions.

If these seem like narrow self-interested gains for the
teachers and their union, think again. Teaching in
inner city schools is a difficult and demanding job.

Most of the children in Chicago's public schools are
poor. Their families are struggling with all the issues
presented by poverty. Many of the schools are in high
crime areas and serious crimes often take place on
school premises. It can be a lot harder job than
working for a hedge fund.

It will not be possible to get committed and competent
people to teach in the public school system if they
cannot be guaranteed at least a limited amount of job
security and respect. The $70,000 annual pay that was
ridiculed as excessive by so many pundits would not
even be a week's salary for many of the Wall Street
types who do nothing more productive than shuffle
paper.

Michelle Rhee and Kevin Johnson protested for corporate agenda

“Silent” protestors" with their mouths taped shut  confronted Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson and corporate education proponent Michelle Rhee as they entered a  carefully promoted and controlled  discussion about education issues at the Tsakopoulos Library Galleria, 828 I St, in Sacramento on Wednesday, January 25.

The demonstrators held a news briefing with local media outlets.  The Sacramento Bee did not cover the demonstration.  This protests occurs as Wall Street corporations and foundations are funding not only the privatization of education.  The protestors set up a ‘gauntlet” of protestors with their mouths taped shut –something Rhee admitted to doing to her noisy students when she was a teacher. She later said some of the students were hurt when they removed the tape.

The “Town Hall” organized by Rhee and Johnson gained positive press coverage on local news channels.  They covered Rhee’s views and the advocacy group without describing her connections to right wing groups.  In interviews Rhee did not support replacing the money for public schools lost in recent budget cuts. 

Why do many reporters not report on the realities of the corporate sponsorship of  one group of  “school reformers”?   They too often  rely upon the wisdom of selected “spokespersons” such as Michelle Rhee.  The media  has  been sold a framework of  a corporate view of accountability. Corporate sponsored networks and think tanks such as the the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, the Broad Foundation,  the Bradley Foundation, the Pacific Research Institute,  and the Olin Foundation provide “experts” prepared to give an opinion on short notice to meet a reporters deadline.  Most reporters assume that these notables are telling the truth when in fact they are promoting a particular  viewpoint. Who do they not talk with?  They fail to interview experienced teachers and professionals who have worked for decades to improve the quality of inner city schools.

Inside the Military-Industrial-Media Complex;

Inside the Military-Industrial-Media Complex: Impacts on Movement for Social Justice

Sunday 27 December 2009

by: Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed   While most progressive media activists do not believe in some omnipotent conspiracy, an overwhelming portion of NCMR participants do believe the leadership class in the US is dominated by a neo-conservative group of some several hundred people who share a goal of asserting US military power worldwide. This Global Dominance Group (GDM) continues under both Republican and Democratic rule.  In cooperation with major military contractors, the corporate media, and conservative foundations, the GDM has become a powerful long-term force in military unilateralism and US political processes.

The Global Dominance Group and Information Control

A long thread of sociological research documents the existence of a dominant ruling class in the US, which sets policy and determines national political priorities. C. Wright Mills, in his 1956 book The Power Elite, documented how World War II solidified a trinity of power in the US that comprised corporate, military and government elites in a centralized power structure working in unison through “higher circles” of contact and agreement.[vi] This power has grown through the Cold War and, after 9/11, the Global War on Terror.

The value of Alternet

ABOUT ALTERNET
AlterNet's Mission
www.alternet.org
AlterNet is an award-winning news magazine and online community that creates original journalism and amplifies the best of hundreds of other independent media sources. AlterNet's aim is to inspire action and advocacy on the environment, human rights and civil liberties, social justice, media, health care issues, and more. Since its inception in 1998, AlterNet.org has grown dramatically to keep pace with the public demand for independent news. We provide free online content to millions of readers, serving as a reliable filter, keeping our vast audience well-informed and engaged, helping them to navigate a culture of information overload and providing an alternative to the commercial media onslaught. Our aim is to stimulate, inform, and instigate.
Strong Content

AlterNet receives more than 3 million monthly visitors and more than 7.5 million monthly page views. AlterNet's readers comprise a strong base, who help virally spread AlterNet content to their networks by forwarding stories and emailing links. Many of AlterNet's readers come from search engines (like Google) and news aggregator sites (such as Digg or Reddit), a testament to the fact that AlterNet reaches beyond the typical "choir" of progressive readers.
Amplifier for Other Progressive Media
AlterNet is a key player in the echo chamber of progressive ideas and vision. We create original reportage while amplifying the best content from over 200 independent media sources and individual voices, including over 40 of the most compelling and insightful blogs. In the past year, AlterNet has brought more than 11 million readers and viewers to other progressive media makers' content -- often many more readers and viewers than the content received originally.
Building a Strong Community and Influence on the Web
AlterNet is successful at building community, as well as influence. Over 30,000 commenters are registered on the site, and many of our stories receive hundreds of comments from these dedicated readers. According to Technorati.com (the recognized authority on the topic), more than 97,000 blog posts link to AlterNet content, driving traffic back to our site, and virally marketing our content across the web.
STRATEGIC JOURNALISM
AlterNet has developed a unique model of journalism to confront the failures of corporate media, as well as the vitriol and disinformation of right wing media, especially "hate talk" media.
Not only do we keep our readers highly informed on a wide array of topics, from hundreds of experts and sources, but we also provide laser focus on the most compelling issues of the day. We offer our readers comprehensive information, a positive vision for the future, and concrete action steps towards change. AlterNet believes that media must have a higher purpose beyond the essential goal of keeping people informed. We insist on playing an active role in helping our community funnel its energy into change.

Auto workers and bail outs

I am having a problem with the current media discussion of the proposed loan (bailout) of the auto industry. I have watched a number of programs including the Lehr News Hour, Lou Dobbs, and more. They usually have 2-3 commentators on the economy. One is from the Heritage Foundation, or the Cato Institute, both right wing think tanks.
The conversation goes on for awhile, then the designated commentator will say something like,
Well you know that the wage package and benefits of auto workers are just too high to sustain. There is going to have to be some wage reductions or benefit reductions.
Lets look at this. The average auto worker makes about $56,000 per year for working a 40 hour week for 50 weeks.
As far as I can tell none of the media commentators make so little. I think when they make this claim suggesting wage cuts they should be asked,
“And what is your salary?” “Do you have health care for your family?” Lou Dobbs make millions. The Heritage Foundation and Cato types make at least $90,000 per year. And, what do they produce? Hot air. Remember that finance capital, who they serve, paid their CEO’s in the millions of dollars per year.
Auto workers produce cars.
It is hard for me to judge the veracity of the commentators when they don’t disclose their own salaries and benefits.
See the piece below by Grieder.