What's sad about the attempts to make it "on-message" is how bad and shallow they are. India is a big and complicated place, and there is a lot to think about

What's sad about the attempts to make it "on-message" is how bad and shallow they are. India is a big and complicated place, and there is a lot to think about its economic development. Are big foreign companies favored over small and/or local ones? Why, what kind of dynamic is at play here? How does the new economic power of women affect the sex selection of infants? There's just two examples, right of the top of my head, that I think (hope!) would be of interest to the hard core mother jones readers. But that's not where this goes, instead we get the shallow, almost caricaturish, money isn't everything undertone. Mixed with not enough money undertone, the workers should be getting paid more, they work 30+ hours shifts and still have to have bunk mates. All this mixed with, life sure can be complicated in this modern ever changing world. And none of these issues are explored in depth, it's just "doesn't it suck how little they are paid, doesn't it suck that money doesn't make you happy, hey look a Marxists!" I guess I would mind "on-message" editorializing a lot less, if it was part of a really good article. And what's most disturbing is this sense I get that maybe there could have been a much better article, but then it wouldn't have been on message, and to make it on message some bad things had to be done to the writing.