Annual Fundraising Appeal
Over the course of 21 years, we’ve published many unflattering stories about Henry Kissinger. We’ve recounted his involvement in the Chilean coup and the illegal bombings of Cambodia and Laos; his hidden role in the Kent State massacre and the genocide in East Timor; his noxious influence peddling in DC and craven work for dictators and repressive regimes around the world. We’ve questioned his ethics, his morals and his intelligence. We’ve called for him to be arrested and tried for war crimes. But nothing we’ve ever published pissed off HK quite like this sequence of photos taken at a conference in Brazil, which appeared in one of the early print editions of CounterPunch.
100716HenryKissingerNosePicking
The publication of those photos, and the story that went with them, 20 years ago earned CounterPunch a global audience in the pre-web days and helped make our reputation as a fearless journal willing to take the fight to the forces of darkness without flinching. Now our future is entirely in your hands. Please donate.

Day12Fixed

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
cp-store

or use
pp1

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

In Their Own Backyard

MSNBC Hosts Ignore Unionization Effort

by MICHAEL ARRIA

A couple months ago, MSNBC host Ed Schultz ignited something resembling an online controversy by ducking some important questions about unionization efforts at Peacock Productions. Peacock Productions is the nonfiction production wing of NBC News and The Writer’s Guild of America-East (WGA-E) has been fighting for a union vote since 2012. They envision portable health insurance and overtime pay for staffers. The company’s most recent effort to quash agitation involves their claim that producers can’t actually vote, on whether to unionize, because they’re technically “supervisors.” This farcical suggestion was enough to delay the process and get the seemingly torpid National Labor Relations Board to investigate. The vote was held in June, but the Peacock Productions appeal has impounded the ballots.mediumblue.cover_5.06x7.81_EC-e1394643725270-291x450

In December, the AFL-CIO sent an open letter to MSNBC’s prominent hosts, hoping to drum up support for WGA-E’s efforts. “Since July 2012, producers and associate producers have worked with the Writers Guild of America, East (WGAE) in order to organize a union and bargain with Peacock Productions. They have expressed real concern about access to affordable health insurance, declining pay rates, long hours and an overall feeling of job insecurity among even the most talented and qualified,” explained the letter, “Unfortunately, Peacock has not acted in good faith, as its parent company NBC has in the past. Instead, Peacock has fought against its workers’ rights, jeopardizing the livelihoods of the workers.”

The note was enough to get Chris Hayes (often defined by lefty critics of the network as MSNBC’s “notable exception”) to meet with the Peacock workers, but not enough to inspire a public endorsement from Hayes or any other host. While Hayes, Maddow, O’Donnell, and Sharpton remained silent, Schultz responded to a Salon inquiry on the subject, by choosing to focus on the fact that MoveOn.org posted a similar petition, “Moveon.org has never been an ally of Ed Schultz, why should I help you with a story? Give me a reason.”

Schultz’s evasiveness didn’t stop there. After people began questioning the fiery progressive’s silence on Twitter, he took to his radio show in an effort to set the record straight. He declared that he has always been a supporter of unions, but refused to mention Peacock workers specifically. He claimed that the online critiques of his stance were, merely, a product of “income envy,” hurled at him from jealous leftists. “There are going to be minions out there that are going to twist and turn and spin and have expectations without going to the source,” he explained, before continuing to talk about his support for labor in the vague terms. “Do you think the management and ownership know who Ed Schultz is?” he asked rhetorically. “Do you think they know what I stand for? Do they think they know what my position is? Of course they do.”

Shortly after this perplexing rant, he took an on-air call from labor reporter, Mike Elk, who asked him if he would make a statement in support of the workers. Within no time, Schultz had somehow steered his analysis to asides about how he dislikes journalist David Sirota. Schultz has continued to imply that he might be steering the direction of the proceedings, and that critics are unaware of his actions, but there’s no evidence to suggest any of this is true.

It’s easy, and enjoyable, to criticize Ed Schultz. He’s a right-wing blowhard who transformed himself into a liberal blowhard. He’s a man who travels around in a jet to give pep talks to unions. (He is paid thousands of dollars to do so and insists it all goes to charity.) He’s a media member who relentlessly shills for the Obama administration’s foreign policy. His diagnosis for every organized labor setback is a firm denunciation of the GOP, even when reflection is in order. After the failed attempt to recall Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, he had little to say about how a legitimate people’s movement was co-opted by slick Democratic strategists. How could you blame him? It’s a culture he revels in.

However, as ridiculous as Schultz can be, he’s small potatoes. His name didn’t even come up when I talked to the Executive Director of the WGA-E, Lowell Peterson, who wanted to stress that, in the end, this isn’t about MSNBC, but about the workers. When I asked him what he thought was behind the silence of the hosts, he admitted he had no idea, but speculated that, “maybe the feel pressure from a corporate parent.”

This theory appears to be the most logical explanation, as it seems that the stars of MSNBC, at the very least, believe firmly in the liberal analysis they are paid to deliver; every host identified on the MoveOn.org petition regularly celebrates unions on their program. A staple of nearly every network profile is the part where an MSNBC personality brushes away charges of the station being a Fox New for Democrats, by explaining that their commentary is never questioned or coached by higher-ups. These facts are generally juxtaposed with the propaganda of the right-wing media machine, which tends to be direct in its coercion.

This begs a question: if MSNBC hosts have never really been squeezed by their corporate overlords up until this point, is this the first time their voices have threatened Comcast’s bottom line? If so, what does this say about our country’s progressive media?

While a Schultz endorsement might not tip the scale, it’s hard to believe that support from Rachel Maddow would not. The union vote seems to be inevitable, but the process could no doubt be sped up if the network’s most prominent superstar endorsed the effort. Maddow, who makes $7 million a year, has spent the past two months droning on about The Fort Lee lane closure scandal, regularly excoriating Chris Christie for his alleged involvement. The focus is, no doubt, fueled by Christie’s 2016 presidential aspirations. In the end, Maddow’s time seems to be spent fighting battles for the Democratic Party as opposed to fighting battles for the workers outside her office.

Lean forward, indeed.

Michael Arria writes for Vice’s Motherboard.tv and is the author of the new CounterPunch book, Medium Blue: The Politics of MSNBC.