3 ms·

Corporate America Is Caving to Trump, Not Just Because of a Lack of Backbone

10 points by ripe 1y ago

duxup 1y ago
The argument in the article is that they're in on it, I'm sure some are, and that's likely true in some cases to varying degrees. But let's say you wanted to stand up, what would you do? Sue? Courts are supposed to be the route you go. The majority in SCOTUS has effectively given Trump default win after default win saying his decisions stand while the legal process plays out... This has reached absurd levels with things that can't possibly provide any citizens any kind of protection. Tariff impacts, science cuts, your business goes under, your job cut, doesn't matter if years later SCOTUS says 'LOL that was bad, sorry...' So imagine being ABC (let's just say they want to fight) and the FCC takes you off the air ... SCOTUS says "yeah too bad going to have to be off the air while the legal process plays out", you're out of business at that point. SCOTUS decided Trump was more equal than others and has chosen the winner is Trump by default so far. There is no option for these orgs or citizens no matter what the law says.
- ripe 1y ago
  Good point. The article does acknowledge this aspect, but it notes one important thing that was true in the 1950s and is no longer true: > The business world of the 1950s and 1960s was a clubby, inbred place and its apotheosis was the boardroom — especially the bank boardroom. The country’s biggest banks populated their boards with chief executives from a wide range of industries in order to keep tabs on the economy. When they gathered around a conference table, the executives tended to agree on matters large and small. This establishment had many bad aspects, including racism and sexism, but the result was a unified front, and they couldn't be bullied so easily by an out-of-control president. This all changed with shareholder capitalism, with every company for itself. As a result, they can no longer stand up to Trump.
labrador 1y ago
https://archive.is/HJJmS https://archive.is/HJJmS Losing money over principled stands for freedom is inconcievable to the corporate class which includes the NY Times and this author. The article reads like these people would sell out their own mothers to avoid a loss and that's a normal position to take.
- DaveZale 1y ago
  Well, some good journalists go to alternative media when cancelled by corporate media. Look at the ownership of big media to know their bias. Getting fired by big media is a rite of passage for uncorrupted, honest journalists. Especially in the US.
  - labrador 1y ago
    Good point. I wouldn't expect a New York Times reported to compare corporate American companies to IG Farben using slave labor from Auschwitz but that's where we're headed with prisons for profit.
    - DaveZale 1y ago
      I wouldn't expect coverage of so called AI companies that are de facto mass surveillance of Americans, either. Like a privatized stasi.

10 points by ripe 1y ago

The argument in the article is that they're in on it, I'm sure some are, and that's likely true in some cases to varying degrees. But let's say you wanted to stand up, what would you do? Sue? Courts are supposed to be the route you go. The majority in SCOTUS has effectively given Trump default win after default win saying his decisions stand while the legal process plays out... This has reached absurd levels with things that can't possibly provide any citizens any kind of protection. Tariff impacts, science cuts, your business goes under, your job cut, doesn't matter if years later SCOTUS says 'LOL that was bad, sorry...' So imagine being ABC (let's just say they want to fight) and the FCC takes you off the air ... SCOTUS says "yeah too bad going to have to be off the air while the legal process plays out", you're out of business at that point. SCOTUS decided Trump was more equal than others and has chosen the winner is Trump by default so far. There is no option for these orgs or citizens no matter what the law says.

ripe 1y ago
Good point. The article does acknowledge this aspect, but it notes one important thing that was true in the 1950s and is no longer true: > The business world of the 1950s and 1960s was a clubby, inbred place and its apotheosis was the boardroom — especially the bank boardroom. The country’s biggest banks populated their boards with chief executives from a wide range of industries in order to keep tabs on the economy. When they gathered around a conference table, the executives tended to agree on matters large and small. This establishment had many bad aspects, including racism and sexism, but the result was a unified front, and they couldn't be bullied so easily by an out-of-control president. This all changed with shareholder capitalism, with every company for itself. As a result, they can no longer stand up to Trump.

labrador 1y ago

https://archive.is/HJJmS https://archive.is/HJJmS Losing money over principled stands for freedom is inconcievable to the corporate class which includes the NY Times and this author. The article reads like these people would sell out their own mothers to avoid a loss and that's a normal position to take.

DaveZale 1y ago
Well, some good journalists go to alternative media when cancelled by corporate media. Look at the ownership of big media to know their bias. Getting fired by big media is a rite of passage for uncorrupted, honest journalists. Especially in the US.
- labrador 1y ago
  Good point. I wouldn't expect a New York Times reported to compare corporate American companies to IG Farben using slave labor from Auschwitz but that's where we're headed with prisons for profit.
  - DaveZale 1y ago
    I wouldn't expect coverage of so called AI companies that are de facto mass surveillance of Americans, either. Like a privatized stasi.