Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

Lubing the Boob Tube

Matt Welch | 2.11.2010 1:56 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

The Nation has a good cover story up about lobbyists who appear on cable TV without being labeled as such, issuing opinions that–surprise!–often prove favorable to their clients' interests. Look, there's former Pennsylvania governor and Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge on MSNBC in December, saying we should "create nuclear power plants"! And now THE REST of the story:

But what viewers weren't told was that since 2005, Ridge has pocketed $530,659 in executive compensation for serving on the board of Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear power company. As of March 2009, he also held an estimated $248,299 in Exelon stock, according to SEC filings.

Moments earlier, retired general and "NBC Military Analyst" Barry McCaffrey told viewers that the war in Afghanistan would require an additional "three- to ten-year effort" and "a lot of money." Unmentioned was the fact that DynCorp paid McCaffrey $182,309 in 2009 alone. The government had just granted DynCorp a five-year deal worth an estimated $5.9 billion to aid American forces in Afghanistan.

Lots more examples at the link, including AIG-bailout apologists Dana Perino and Bernard Whitman, former Important Democrats-turned health care lobbysists Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle, and more. How do the networks compare in their guest-description transparency?

Some of this has changed in recent months, with CNN starting to identify the industries some analysts work for. For its part, Fox News has long identified the lobbying or PR firms of some--though not all--guests, but the network does not give viewers any information about the kinds of clients these firms represent. […]

Then there's MSNBC, the cable network with the most egregious instances of airing guests with conflicts of interest.

Link via Christopher Hayes' Twitter feed.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Obama's Pardon Drought Continues

Matt Welch is an editor at large at Reason.

PoliticsWorldCulturePolicyEnvironmentalismLobbyingPropagandaTelevisionForeign PolicyHealth Care
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (40)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Old Mexican   15 years ago

    Then there's MSNBC, the cable network with the most egregious instances of airing guests with conflicts of interest.

    Thanks, but many of us had figured that one out a long time ago.

    1. John Tagliaferro   15 years ago

      The fact that this is in The Nation is the more amazing part. It's as if Ramparts trashed Pravda in the 1960s.

      1. Brian E   15 years ago

        The old left eats its own progeny. Fortunately, we get to enjoy the spectacle.

      2. peachy   15 years ago

        O'Rourke didn't call it "that compendium of the snits and quarrels of the Old Left" for nothing. (I quote from memory, but I believe that's right.)

        1. John Tagliaferro   15 years ago

          Nice, I will try to remember that one.

    2. @   15 years ago

      I thought they were just "strategists."

  2. Old Mexican   15 years ago

    The Nation has a good cover story up about lobbyists who appear on cable TV without being labeled as such[...]

    Hey, as long as they are kept away from Obama's cabinet - remember, no lobbyist was to be hired into the Pharaoh's inner circle!

  3. P Brooks   15 years ago

    Barry McCaffrey: MSNBC must have a guy designated to follow him around and mop up the trail of slime he leaves, everywhere he goes.

  4. Jerry   15 years ago

    And here I was, waiting for a 3-page essay on YouPorn.com; I demand Truth in Advertising!

    1. Jeff P   15 years ago

      Matt is such a cock-tease.

      1. TrickyVic   15 years ago

        A cock teaser at Roosterama?

    2. wylie   15 years ago

      He's gonna be real pissed when he actually needs to write an article about youtube-style porn sites, and realizes he blew a great headline prematurely.

      (Punned up for your pleasure)

  5. Tim   15 years ago

    TV lies to us? Unthinkful!

    1. bobzmoose   15 years ago

      I know! Thank goodness we have the Internets. It will never lie to us...

  6. Marc   15 years ago

    The alt-text is the winningest.

  7. yojimbo   15 years ago

    I don't really know what a boob tube that requires lubing looks like but you have my undivided attention.

  8. wylie   15 years ago

    This Just In!

    Proponent of nuclear power invests in nuclear power. He even WORKS in nuclear power! Get you lynching nooses ready.

    1. Matt Welch   15 years ago

      The critique is more about MSNBC.

      1. wylie   15 years ago

        Yeah, but what do they expect?

        "Tonight on MSNBC, we'll talk to a proponent for nuclear power. He works in nuclear power, and invests his money in it. There, happy? There's your totally obvious full-disclosure. Tomorrow we'll talk to a climate scientist. He's invested in renewable energy. And after that we'll talk to a dog breeder, who is thoroughly invested in febreeze."

        I'm missing the scandal. "MSNBC doesn't disclose that their guests support the causes they're on the show to talk about! omg 1111!11one."

        1. cmace   15 years ago

          Ridge is labeled in the pic as an NBC News Analyst. That's what the story is about.

          Most people don't that ridge works for Exelon.

          1. wylie   15 years ago

            Whoops, I didn't get it. There is a big difference between "here's our guest" and "here's our correspondent."

            I just don't watch enough (any) tv news.

          2. wylie   15 years ago

            (or...um, actually watch the vids i'm commenting on. *cough* *cough*)

  9. Brian E   15 years ago

    This is exactly why the media was in the tank for McCain-Feingold and is aghast at the reversal in Citizens United. They're already exempt from all of these campaign finance and lobbying reform rules, which means they have a natural monopoly on access of lobbyists to government. This is the inevitable result.

    It's a shame that this won't be parsed as the inevitable result of media exclusions on speech regulations, but rather as just another example of corporate power run amok.

  10. Xeones   15 years ago

    Count me among those who, having seen the headline, felt profound disappointment upon actually reading the article.

  11. R C Dean   15 years ago

    The Nation has a good cover story up

    My brain hurts.

    1. Matt Welch   15 years ago

      They had a pretty good cover story up in the 1960s on the Hell's Angels, by a cat named Thompson....

  12. Catherine   15 years ago

    My father, a Rachel Maddow, fan was upset that Dr. Laura Tyson was on her show discussing the banking crisis and never mentioned she was on the board of Morgan Stanley. Maddow had to apologize the next night and claimed to have been hoodwinked. I had the opposite reaction of my dad - why didn't she know Tyson was on the board? Sloppy and it's not the only instance in Maddow's case, but she usually blames the guest or her staff.

    1. SugarFree   15 years ago

      Your father is a Rachel Maddow? Hideous.

      1. @   15 years ago

        People have pulled their own heads off for less.

  13. kinnath   15 years ago

    I gave up watching television news about a decade ago. If it wasn't for the ubiquitous TV screens in the gym, I wouldn't know that Glen Beck was a circus clown from the silent film era.

  14. R C Dean   15 years ago

    I'm thinking a blanket disclaimer across the bottom of the screen:

    "It is safe to assume that anyone appearing on this show is being paid to say what they say, or is otherwise talking their book. If they aren't, we'll let you know."

  15. Tim Cavanaugh   15 years ago

    The flacks and/or lobbyists themselves should insist on these tags. How can you represent a client you're embarrassed to own?

    1. Episiarch   15 years ago

      Ask Ashlee Simpson's manager.

  16. bruno   15 years ago

    Does it really matter who the source is? Even someone who you generally disagree with can have a valid point. Is it not our job to integrate what we have just seen or heard with our other observations and come to our own conclusions?

  17. R C Dean   15 years ago

    Does it really matter who the source is?

    Yes, it does. The concepts of "trust" and "conflict of interest" are a necessary and important part of evaluating any statement.

    1. anonymous   15 years ago

      Easiest solution is to trust no one.

      1. bobzmoose   15 years ago

        You must be lying about that!

  18. MarkR   15 years ago

    The real news here is that anyone could think this is new(s). This practice is ancient. To quote Captain Renault, "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"

  19. Almanian   15 years ago

    C'mon, how obvious is this one - the networks' policy regarding their guests' "affiliations" (shall we say) appears to be....

    Don't ask, don't tell

    * bah BUMP -cymbal crash- *

    Thank you, thank you - try the chicken fingers, I'll be here all week!

  20. Tristan Band   15 years ago

    Here's to The Nation; the writer of that article deserves a nice, micro-brewed beer.

    Slowly, but surely, the truth always comes out. The sins of the Right were exposed the past eight years; now, it is the Left that is on the chopping block.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

How Trump's Travel Crackdown Is Hurting Americans at Home and Abroad

Matt Welch | From the August/September 2025 issue

Superman Is About the Anti-War Vibe Shift

Matthew Petti | 7.18.2025 5:23 PM

Why Are Students Using AI To Cheat? Maybe Because They Shouldn't Be In College At All

Emma Camp | 7.18.2025 4:00 PM

Although Meth Is Irresistible, The New York Times Says, Addicts Often Prefer Small Cash Rewards

Jacob Sullum | 7.18.2025 1:45 PM

ICE Is Shipping Detainees to Hawaii as Bed Space on the U.S. Mainland Fills Up

Autumn Billings | 7.18.2025 1:24 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!