CNBC ought to address this immediately
March 01, 2009 1:00 pm ET by Eric Boehlert
The biz blog The Big Picture highlights this new report from Playboy [emphasis added]:
What we discovered is that [Rick] Santelli’s “rant” was not at all spontaneous as his alleged fans claim, but rather it was a carefully-planned trigger for the anti-Obama campaign. In PR terms, his February 19th call for a "Chicago Tea Party" was the launch event of a carefully organized and sophisticated PR campaign, on in which Santelli served a Chicago frontman, using the CNBC airwaves for publicity, for some of the craziest and sleaziest rightwing oligarch clans this country has ever produced. Namely, the Koch family, the multibilllionaire owners of the largest private corporation in America, and funders of scores of rightwing thinktanks and advocacy groups, from the Cato Institute and Reason Magazine to FreedomWorks. The scion of the Koch family, Fred Koch, was a co-founder of the notorious extremist-rightwing John Birch Society.”
The Big Picture concludes correctly, "This is now a very serious charge...if any of it is true, well then, Santelli may have to fall on his sword, and CNBC may owe the public an apology."
UPDATE: John Amato has more at Crooks and Liars.
Thank you, Eric, for this piece. I think that we can all keep the pressure and dilligence on CNBC and Fox News on these issues. Because the network of people involved in this hoax are from CNBC reporters to Fox News anchors to Roger Ailes operatives.
Undoing years of Reaganomics will not happen unless we can uncover these links and show that "grassroots" campaigns like the made-up Chicago Tea Party are nothing more than big business looking out for itself.
Keep up the good work, MMFA!
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/rick-santellis-rant-was-coordinated-eff
Another good article on Koch's latest "Populist Revolution."
Good story.
Is any of this surprising? It's the kind of thing FDR fought off when he railed against the "economic royalists." So it was nice to see Obama finally throw down the gauntlet on Saturday and take these guys on. It will get messy, but the Dems will prevail. They have to.
I think it's interesting that so many people care whether or not the 'rant' was spontaneous or not. The chance of anything posing as spontaneous but broadcast on TV actually having been scripted in advance...95%? From this, I learned that there's even a name "astroturfing" for "imitation-grassroots PR campaigns." Previously, I'd only heard John Tantillo's term "adpublitzing" (harnessing 'negative' media attention and taking advantage of the free publicity). Like it or not, this stuff is all over the place. Perhaps this 'rant' was spontaneous, perhaps it wasn't. I think it's pretty immaterial to the actual debate, though.
The response that Santelli has generated is a great example of what John Tantillo just called "the power of brand people" on his last brand winner/loser post.
I voted for Obama, was an early Obama supporter, and think that the stimulus is the best of the bad options we have before us. And I think that 20 years from now, we'll still be debating whether or not the stimulus was effective, and whether or not it was the right thing to do.
I do see this movement as a very positive thing, though. Santelli's rant as well as the White House's response. There are idiots and thoughtful people on both side of this issue. The interests of 'big business' and the far right are Not inconsistent with middle class and blue collars workers' interests across the board.
More conversation will at least help clear up some misconceptions as to how the money is being spent and who is benefiting, And this opposition should put always-needed pressure on Congress (to counteract some of the pressure from lobbyists) to be accountable for where the money goes. I take it for granted that some of this money will be wasted and that some will go to those who shouldn't be getting it, special interests, etc. That's just the way politics worse. With 'brand people' - nerdy as it sounds, I hope this will be closer to...say, 15% rather than 40% (numbers randomly chosen..).
Some good can come out of these times. As John Tantillo said in his post (referenced above): "Fact is, we’re going to see more of this as politicians recognize that they will have to be ever more accountable to a well-informed and motivated brand that will demand results instead of ideology."
"20 years from now, we'll still be debating whether or not the stimulus was effective, and whether or not it was the right thing to do."
Maybe, but the health of the country in 20 years depends much more on the budget than the stimulus. If we can lock in rational tax policy for the next ten years against the frenetic braying of nearly everyone with a microphone, we just might shatter the oligarchy forever.