How the Hype Became Bigger Than the Presidential Election
Blame the media for making whole generations hate The Process
Mitt Romney and Barack Obama participate in the first Presidential Debate. SAUL LOEB/AFP/GettyImages
Matt Taibbi October 9, 2012 3:20 PM ET
Well, it's over. Or almost over, thank God. It looks like Obama will probably win, which I guess is good news, compared to the alternative – a Mitt Romney presidency would have felt like four straight years of waking up with a naked Lloyd Blankfein sitting on your face. But it's not so much the result that matters – it's the quiet.
What we Americans go through to pick a president is not only crazy and unnecessary but genuinely abusive. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent in a craven, cynical effort to stir up hatred and anger on both sides. A decision that in reality takes one or two days of careful research to make is somehow stretched out into a process that involves two years of relentless, suffocating mind-warfare, an onslaught of toxic media messaging directed at liberals, conservatives and everyone in between that by Election Day makes every dinner conversation dangerous and literally divides families.
Politicians are much to blame for this, but we in the media have to take responsibility for the damage we do to the American psyche in the name of election coverage. At this very moment, there are people all over the country who are stocking up on canned goods and ammo for the apocalypse they believe will come if Obama is re-elected. For the broadcast business to be successful, viewers need to be not merely interested in our political melodramas, they have to be in an absolute state about them – emotionally invested in the outcome and frightened not to watch what happens next. And any person who's been subjected to 720 consecutive days of propaganda is not likely to take the news well if he gets the wrong result, whether it's a victory for Obama or for Romney. By that point, the networks have spent two years finding new ways each day to convince him that the world is going to disintegrate into some commie or Hitlerian version of Mad Max, to keep him coming back and watching ads.
The campaign should start and finish in six weeks, and there should be free TV access to both candidates. And it should be illegal to publish poll numbers. This isn't as crazy as it sounds – they actually had such a law in Russia while I lived there, and people were much happier. (Well, they were still miserable, because they were Russian, but at least they weren't stressing about poll numbers.) Think about it: Banning poll numbers would force the media to actually cover the issues. As it stands now, the horse race is the entire story – I can think of a couple of cable networks that would have to go completely dark tomorrow, as in Dan-Rather-Dead-Fucking-Air dark, if they had to come up with even 10 seconds of news content that wasn't centered on who was winning. That's the dirtiest secret we in the media have kept from you over the years: Most of us suck so badly at our jobs, and are so uninterested in delving into any polysyllabic subject, that we would literally have to put down our shovels and go home if we didn't have poll numbers we can use to terrify our audiences. Can you imagine if your favorite news network had to do stories like, "What is the Overseas Private Investment Corporation up to, and what do each of the candidates think about it?" That would be like asking Nineties-era baseball players to take the field without popping greenies – what, you mean play the game sober? Half the on-air talent would have to resign, or do ad work hawking reverse mortgages.
It obviously matters who gets to be president. And it's perfectly valid for us media types to advocate for the candidate we think is more qualified, based on our reporting. But the hype has gotten so out of control, it's become bigger than the presidency itself. In every race there are now not two but three dominating figures – the Democrat, the Republican and The Process, and we're raising whole generations who hate The Process far more than they like either of the candidates. Mainly for grim commercial reasons, we in the media manipulate people to stay wired on hate and panic-focused on the race for every waking moment, indifferent to how much this depresses the hell out of everyone. In doing so, we rob people of their patriotism and their desire to vote. If The Process is so clearly wrong, how right can the candidates be?
If we did this right, people would come out of presidential elections exhilarated, maybe even stoked to get involved in their local races for county sheriff or D.A. (Such races would likely have more of an impact on their day-to-day lives: For the most part, when it comes to our daily routines, the president might as well be on Mars.) Instead, most of us come out of the election exhausted, in desperate need of a couple of Ambiens and determined to spend the next two years buried in Hulu reruns, afraid to even pass a news channel while couch-surfing our way to Storage Wars or a Lifetime movie.
What makes us feel pessimistic about the world, ultimately, is the way the media encourage us to believe that our fate hangs on the every move of the promise-breaking, terminally disappointing Teflon liars in Washington. And that's a shame, because feeling optimistic shouldn't require turning off the TV or tuning out The Process. What we are witnessing, after all, is the world's greatest contest for power, an amazing fairy tale full of iconic moments that we'll watch no matter how much Sean Hannity or Chris Matthews screams at us. But it would be awesome, next time, if we could find a way to turn down the volume.
I'm guessing you're at work .. thought you might appreciate this one .. It sure is how I feel and not just for this election cycle ... but from forever.. I know you feel that way too! ..It's TIME for a change .. WE will have to be the ones who DEMAND it ..'they' will not do it .....without us driving them to it
It's the whining rich that I'm talking about - NOT you Shermann
The ONES who are attempting to buy and INFLUENCE the presidency with money! ... those are the whining rich .. definitely not people like you..
Here are these wealthy dudes including some who helped crash the economy (not him but you know the ones who have done this who are uh shall we say in the 'financial industry?) .. prancing around all over the country .. whining and now threatening (that's what really gets me.. ;() .. .about what 'they' are going to do to ordinary people who are working for them ... and of course, It's all Obama fault! . .The Truth is about that 'one' particular guy is .. that his businesses are on the downturn anyway .. like DUH! .. It's a recession! .. We're short on jobs ... people aren't going out to dinner as much anymore and those places cater to 'middle class'. . they don't cater to the rich .. they cater to working people ...He had ALREADY CUT his workforce! 75% are ALREADY part time workers .. and further it's o.k. with me if he doesn't provide insurance for his workers ... as there will be exchanges ... where the worker is able to pick and choose his own health care and IF he/she is too poor they will be eligible for a subsidy to help them purchase their health insurance ...Now, they have already done this in MASS. and this same BS argument occurred there that is occurring here and now . .and guess what? .. There wasn't any beef! ... Mass. businesses are quite happy with romneycare and have publicly said so ... All of this has been posted on this board .. when this subject came up previously ....Here's more on "Darden" .. .. a much LESS ideological article .... which also includes a few facts.
Health changes spur test of more part-time workers at Olive Garden, Red Lobster
By CANDICE CHOI and RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR,Associated Press Published October 10th, 2012 4:02 am
NEW YORK (AP) — The owner of Olive Garden and Red Lobster restaurants is putting more workers on part-time status in a test aimed at limiting costs from President Barack Obama's health care law.
Darden Restaurants Inc. declined to give details but said the test is only in four markets across the country. The move entails boosting the number of workers on part-time status, meaning they work less than 30 hours a week.
Under the new health care law, companies with 50 or more workers could be hit with fines if they do not provide basic coverage for full-time workers and their dependents. Starting Jan. 1, 2014, those penalties and requirements could significantly boost labor costs for some companies, particularly in low-wage industries such as retail and hospitality, where most jobs don't come with health benefits.
Darden, which operates more than 2,000 restaurants in the U.S. and Canada, employs about 180,000 people. The company says about 75 percent of its employees are currently part-timers.
Bob McAdam, who heads government affairs and community relations for Darden, said the company is still learning from the tests, which was first reported by the Orlando Sentinel.
"We're not at a point where we have results," he said. McAdam also noted that Darden is not alone in looking at ways to keep labor costs in check, with companies across the industry prepping for the new regulations to take effect.
In fact, Paul Keckley, executive director of the Deloitte Center for Health Statistics, noted that follow-up legislation might be needed to ensure that companies do not shift more workers to part-time status to avoid providing coverage.
"There's not a company in those industries that aren't looking at this," Keckley said.
This summer, for example, McDonald's Corp. Chief Financial Officer Peter Bensen noted in a conference call with investors that the hamburger chain was looking at the many factors that will impact health care costs, including its number of full-time employees.
Nationally, 60 percent of companies offer health benefits, but the figure varies depending on the size of the company. Nearly all companies with 200 or more workers offer benefits, compared with 48 percent for companies with 3-9 workers, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Even beyond health care costs, however, Darden has made cutting labor costs a priority in recent years as sales growth has stalled at its flagship chains. In the most recent fiscal quarter, the company's restaurant labor costs were 31 percent of sales. That's down from 33 percent three years ago.
The reduction was driven by several factors. Given the challenging job market, Darden has been able to offer lower pay rates to new hires, as well as cut bonuses for general managers as sales have stagnated. Servers at Red Lobster now handle four tables at a time, instead of three.
And last year, the company also put workers on a "tip sharing" program, meaning waiters and waitresses share their tips with other employees such as busboys and bartenders. That allows Darden to pay more workers a far lower "tip credit wage" of $2.13, rather than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.
Starting next year, the company will change the way it offers health insurance to full-time employees, to keep costs more predictable. Instead of offering one insurance plan for all 45,000 employees, it will give workers a contribution toward buying coverage and then send them to an online health insurance exchange where they can chose from five medical, four dental and three vision plans.
More employers are looking at this concept, known as defined contribution health insurance, as a way to stabilize health insurance costs.
Darden said it decided to do it because a survey indicated that employees wanted more options.
The important thing is that the employees will end up with better insurance coverage .. Macdonalds coverage was a total joke and I have a feeling (only a feeling) that these restaurants have been offering the same type of health coverage that 'macdonalds' was doing .. which is fine as long as You don't get sick! .. .so either way .. whatever he does .. the employees will have a better health plan either through him or the ones they pick out from the health exchange ... He's simply trying to influence the elections and politicians in washington .. .. that's it.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
