How does GE keep its pot of gold safe under the leftish MSNBC rainbow?

This weekend saw the publication of a NY Times report about an agreement between Rupert Murdoch, owner of News Corp. and Jeff Immelt, CEO of General Electric (which owns NBC and MSNBC). Apparently, the corporate titans agreed that MSNBC would censor news anchor Kieth Olberman. This outrage prompted Greenwald to blog about the dangers of GE ownership of NBC/MSNBC.

MSNBC is an enigma. On the surface, the relatively liberal programming format of this cable news service would seem to be at odds with the priorities of a parent company that has a vested interest in maintaining the political and economic order. But does GE really operate MSNBC in the public interest? The question arises: How might GE have ensured that its sponsorship of America's only truly progressive cable news network does not get in the way of its own agenda?

Fox and right wing radio provide one clue. To a large extent, right-wing leaning news organizations set the agenda for MSNBC: Fox turns remarks made about race, sexuality, gender -- or celebrity lifestyle squabbles -- into news events. In response, MSNBC devotes almost as much time to the other side of these stories, debunking the myths.

For example, MSNBC has given inordinate attention to exposing the "birther" nonsense (the pedantic charge that Obama is not an American citizen), the Sotomayor confirmation nonsense (the unfounded claim that the "wise Latina" candidate for the US supreme court is anti-white), and the various marital infidelity scandals of politicians. MSNBC spends an awful lot of time discussing news stories "invented" by right-wing radio's Rush Limbaugh or Fox News.

For GE, social-left issues are completely safe. Whether a gay or a straight pilots a military aircraft powered by a pair of GE jet engines makes no difference to the company. Whether man with white or black skin occupies the White House makes no difference. Whether or not right-wing politicians involved in marital infidelity get exposed for hypocrisy is bottom-line neutral -- just have your lobbyists divert the checks to politicians who haven't been exposed. The tendency of sex scandals to get sensationalized in the US allows for the blackmail or punishment of politicians who fall out of favor (i.e. the Eliot Spitzer scandal).

Fox News and MSNBC focus on race, sex, lifestyle issues for essentially the same reason. Whereas MSNBC tends to blame "worst persons," Fox tends to target left-wing groups. Either way, focusing on perceived trouble-makers makes for entertaining television. Moreover, blaming "liberals" or various redneck personalities is safest from the perspective of parent corporations -- and advertisers. Whether the bad guys are on the left or the right, the result is the same: by the end of a broadcast viewers are none the wiser. The political and economic system has not been scrutinized too closely.

However, the big stories today are fundamentally economic stories. When white firemen complain of discrimination (the Sotomayor confirmation) or a white policeman is portrayed as the victim of racist politician (outrage over Obama's comments on the arrest of Gates), behind any claim of discrimination are some harsh economic facts. Fire and police departments provide adequate pay, proper benefits, and decent working conditions at a time when good blue-collar jobs are vanishing. Although I am supportive of what Obama has had to say about the controversy, it is not surprising to me that a Harvard-educated president's criticism of Sergeant James Crowley hit a nerve. Any news organization owned by a multinational corporation is going to more inclined to talk about racism than the distribution of the economic pie.

Given who owns it, one would expect MSNBC to devote far more airtime to "social" lefty causes -- racism, gay rights, sexual equality, etc. -- than stories that probe economic disparity, corporate governance, or consumer rights. One looks for a rainbow-coalition of on-air personalities to lend the news network a progressive appearance. By and large, that is what MSNBC delivers. By careful attention to substance and style, GE has discovered an ingenious way to provide a "left-branded" news network that is safe for the bottom line. In addition, its tight control of MSNBC allows the corporation to influence the trajectory -- and boundaries -- of left-leaning discourse in the United States.

Do multinational corporations with financial ties to numerous industries have any business owning news media companies? I don't think so.