My Lesbian crush grows

The Huffington Post Reports on Rachel Maddow calling out (sic) guest Dr Laura Andrea Tyson for failing to disclose her role as a Board Member of Morgan Stankley in discussing the Baninking Bailout.

First to disclose my conflict. I think Rachel Maddow is adorable, endearing, intelligent and kind of compellingly shy. I have since the first time I saw her on Olbermann. She is a breath of fresh air. I just wish they had cancelled Chris Matthews instead of Dan Abrams to make room for her.

And just as quickly as my crush developed, I thought there is probably very little chance that it would be reciprocated in any way. It is not that I thought we were incompatible. We are about the same age and share common interests. But while my gaydar is not too finely honed, I had not doubt that Rachel appeared to have suited up for the other team. Again, it didn’t affect my crush at all, because it was you know, a crush on a TV personality.

So I am more than happy to celebrate Rachel. But it is sad to have to celebrate her for doing something that you would just assume would be standard practice for her profession. But sadly in the world of professional log rolling that is the national media, being a ethical professional apparently is worthy of note.

Duly noted. Good for you Rachel.

After Enron and Worldcom and Global Crossing and on and on it became common on Financial television for guests to disclose any relevant holdings or conflicts of interest. So the rah-rah press cheerleaders for the fake economy were suddenly shamed into addressing some of the most basic facts behind the pump and dump stock promoters and “analysts” who had used this access for years to dupe the public.

And 7 years later, after more and bigger scandals, the securitization of junk derivatives, and pumping short term revenue at the expense of unlimited risk, we are astonished when a member of the political media actually calls out a conflict like this? And people are making excuses for Dr Tyson not disclosing this obvious conflict?

What is truly stunning is that his corruption is tolerated. Yes, Dr. Tyson should have disclosed that she was A BOARD MEMBER of Morgan Stanley before making any comments as an “expert” on matters involving the taxpayer funded no-strings attached bailout.

A key piece of data here. Dr Tyson is paid $350K per year to serve on the MS Board, which probably amounts to about $10,000 per hour for actual duties. Big companies do not pay independent directors that kind of money because the job is so onerous, so you might want to consider what they are really buying.

Like maybe access to have their interests represented in the national media by spokeswhores posing as independent experts.


Filed under Economy, Media Coverage

2 responses to “My Lesbian crush grows

  1. vantelimus

    This is a big to-do about nothing. Tyson was an invited guest on the show. It was journalist Maddow’s responsibility to research the guest’s background to both help her construct a good interview and to disclose it to the audience, as is required by good journalism.

    It is not hard to find out Tyson’s background. Google her name and you’ll get her public bio from Berkeley in the second link. On that bio, it is clearly disclosed that she is a board member of AT&T Inc., Eastman Kodak Company, and Morgan Stanley. Dig a little deeper and you’ll find out she is a liberal economist who was highly criticized by conservatives when Clinton appointed her to head the CEA. They were offended by the fact that she doesn’t subscribe to the libertarian/conservative dogma that the “invisible hand” of the market knows best.

    There are no excuses to be made for or by Tyson as she did nothing wrong by accepting the invitation to appear on the show. It would be good to remember that when a journalist fails to disclose relevant background of an interviewee, it is the journalists fault, not the interviewee’s fault.

    Tyson wasn’t “called out” by Maddow. Maddow did not accuse Tyson of deceit or corruption. Maddow admitted the mistake of failing to disclose a conflict of interest all belonged to Maddow herself. Apparently, Maddow knows who was responsible, even if her supporters do not.

    Sadly lost in the brouhaha by the self-appointed and publicly outraged is the fact that Tyson actually called for the government to get tougher with the banks and require greater transparency from them. The noisemakers do not address a single thing Tyson said. If they cared to research and reflect, instead of react like so many knee jerks, they would find that Tyson’s comments were typical of left leaning economists. Surely one who feels so outraged might have some substantive criticism of Tyson’s remarks — but apparently, not.

    Neumann103 should be ashamed of his commentary here. It is all heat with no light. His paroxysms may be understandable as negative energy leftover after eight years of the Bush misadministration of America. But, it is truly sad that he has to express his frustrations by hyperbolically slamming one of the few influential left-leaning economists.

  2. neumann103

    Yeah, but back to my point, isn’t Rachel adorable?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s