That's not a fair interpretation. Let's actually break it down... - Current CEO of GM - Former Lockheed-associated Director was VP in charge of Information Sy

That's not a fair interpretation. Let's actually break it down... - Current CEO of GM - Former Lockheed-associated Director was VP in charge of Information Systems. Assuming that's deliverable product and not internal IT (which she also ran), not exactly making the planes - The former CEO of a drug manufacturer - The former CEO of Harvard Management Company (the endowment) - Retired Chairman of Joint Chiefs - Retired CEO of a big oil company - The Chairman of HP - Former CFO of Wal-Mart - Former CEO of Cummins (MOST adjacent business to GM vis engine mfg) - Former Dean of Ivey Business School, The University of Western Ontario - The CEO of eBay So, sure, we can reach and say that some of the individuals have tangential industry experience or we can say that they are on the board because they have high degrees of personal/economic success, presumably large rolodexes, and various levels of experience at the top of large organizations. I'm not taking a position on James Murdoch at all here, just pointing out that board members are not often subject matter experts of what a company produces so much as generally successful and influential people with various levels of business and leadership experience.