NationStates Jolt Archive

I'd heard it burbling around a bit, the story that Nancy Pelosi, Speaker-Elect, was a labor hypocrite because her Napa Valley vineyard doesn't use union workers to pick their grapes. The local ABC affiliate (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/29/pelosi-unions/) does a terrific job showing how Peter Schweizer, a fellow at the Hoover Institute, a conservative think tank at Stanford University (also in that liberal Bay Area), is basically full of shit. Think Progress has the film clip.

Here's the basics, as put together by Think Progress:
1) Pelosi treats her workers better than unionized vineyard workers. “The Pelosis pay more than union workers are paid in the same valley — that from the pastor at St. Helena’s Catholic Church, a well known advocate for farm workers who’s involved in labor negotiations with the same labor manager the Pelosis use. … Monsignor Brenkle says the Pelosis pay a $1.25 an hour more than workers at Napa’s biggest union winery. … Of the more than 300 vineyards, fewer than four are union, and most of the farm workers in the Napa Valley get paid better.”

2) Pelosi is prohibited by law from helping her workers unionize. If Pelosi wanted to have union workers, “she could not ask the union for a contract. It’s illegal and has been since 1975.” Marc Grossman of the United Farm Workers Union explains: “It is patently illegal for any grower to even discuss a union contract, which is the only way you can supply union workers, without the workers first having voted in a state conducted secret ballot election.”
When the ABC reporter asked Schweizer about this, he replied “It’s not my responsibility to go and find out how every single particular circumstance is handled on the Pelosi vineyard.” Funny, that didn't stop him from calling Pelosi a hypocrite to begin with.

Now here's the question I have. Will this be pointed out as an example of the liberal media?

Why not?--hours later, maybe a new audience. Bump

When the ABC reporter asked Schweizer about this, he replied “It’s not my responsibility to go and find out how every single particular circumstance is handled on the Pelosi vineyard.” Funny, that didn't stop him from calling Pelosi a hypocrite to begin with.

Now here's the question I have. Will this be pointed out as an example of the liberal media?

Nah, it's his responsibility to find dirt on Pelosi, the truth has very little to do with it.

Here's perhaps a better question about this story. How much responsibiity does the local media have in tracking down just how much crap is involved in hit jobs on local politicians? I mean, did this ABC station become an advocate or Pelosi simply by checking out the facts behind the charge and then debunking them so openly, or is it their job to do stuff like that? Or conversely, should they stay out of the way and just report the shots that the various sides are taking at each other?

Would have replied earlier, but I've been looking for the button.

Anyway, what ever happened to investigative reporting? Seems like they just regurgitate whatever they're fed.

Nah, it's his responsibility to find dirt on Pelosi, the truth has very little to do with it.

The media so often obtains some nugget of rumour-be it true or not-they toss the piece of shit in the air and whomever is more vocal about it tends to make it as if it were fact. Then people chose to believe it or not.

There are few full facts reported.

As for Pelosi-I dont personally like her. I dont personally like most politicians. They all have some hypocritical bullshit-it just depends how deep you dig.

What she pays people? I couldnt care less. As long as they arent slaves or children laborers, I dont care- they can get another job that pays more or better themselves and command more.

I'd heard it burbling around a bit, the story that Nancy Pelosi, Speaker-Elect, was a labor hypocrite because her Napa Valley vineyard doesn't use union workers to pick their grapes. The local ABC affiliate (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/29/pelosi-unions/) does a terrific job showing how Peter Schweizer, a fellow at the Hoover Institute, a conservative think tank at Stanford University (also in that liberal Bay Area), is basically full of shit. Think Progress has the film clip.

Here's the basics, as put together by Think Progress:

When the ABC reporter asked Schweizer about this, he replied “It’s not my responsibility to go and find out how every single particular circumstance is handled on the Pelosi vineyard.” Funny, that didn't stop him from calling Pelosi a hypocrite to begin with.

Now here's the question I have. Will this be pointed out as an example of the liberal media?
Does this mean that conservatives are now going to fight for organized union workers' rights. How interesting indeed. :D

I was afraid that the elections would have this effect on NSG.

Now, instead of pointing out the various Republicans guilty of misdeeds, and responding to their defenders, you've been forced to play both sides of the fence. Don't worry, we'll have plenty to discuss, once the new Congress actually takes over.

But if Pelosi had actually backed Hastings for the Intel committee, things might have been different.

Here's perhaps a better question about this story. How much responsibiity does the local media have in tracking down just how much crap is involved in hit jobs on local politicians? I mean, did this ABC station become an advocate or Pelosi simply by checking out the facts behind the charge and then debunking them so openly, or is it their job to do stuff like that? Or conversely, should they stay out of the way and just report the shots that the various sides are taking at each other?

They're usually careful to tell us the bad supposition, then leave it up to us to make an informed decision-as if we have details from the investigation available, or we are going to get to the bottom of it ourselves.

I may just go out there and ask some hard questions myself.

Oh wait- I really dont give a fuck. I work a lot to survive and when I'm not working, I'm focused on my family.

Thats kinda what they're counting on.

You'll never see the streets full of working men protesting someone or something.
They use the less intelligent,unemployed cattle for that.

Here's perhaps a better question about this story. How much responsibiity does the local media have in tracking down just how much crap is involved in hit jobs on local politicians? I mean, did this ABC station become an advocate or Pelosi simply by checking out the facts behind the charge and then debunking them so openly, or is it their job to do stuff like that? Or conversely, should they stay out of the way and just report the shots that the various sides are taking at each other?
It's their job to investigate and report. The point of the media is to be a source of information that gives an over-view rather than takes up one side or the other. When one party/individual makes newsworthy claims about others, it is the media's duty to its consumers to not only report the claims but to report the facts surrounding those claims, including any facts that illuminate the degree or extent of truth/non-truth of the claims.

Or as Bitchkitten put is so well "whatever happened to investigative reporting?'

If they are going to just regurgitate what others state, then what do we need them for? We are capable of listening to what is stated for ourselves, what we cannot necessarily do is find the relevent information that allows us to accurately evaluate the truth of the statements...the latter is the role (or ought to be) of the media.

I was afraid that the elections would have this effect on NSG.

Now, instead of pointing out the various Republicans guilty of misdeeds, and responding to their defenders, you've been forced to play both sides of the fence. Don't worry, we'll have plenty to discuss, once the new Congress actually takes over.

But if Pelosi had actually backed Hastings for the Intel committee, things might have been different.

Tell you what--if you find Democrats guily of hypocrisy or better yet, actual criminal conduct, point it out. I've long said that I'm in favor of tossing the bastards out, no matter the party, and I'll stand by that. But if it's more of this kind of stuff--you know, half-reporting, spinning a legal land deal to look illegal like with Reid--then expect me to remain a staunch defender.

Here's perhaps a better question about this story. How much responsibiity does the local media have in tracking down just how much crap is involved in hit jobs on local politicians? I mean, did this ABC station become an advocate or Pelosi simply by checking out the facts behind the charge and then debunking them so openly, or is it their job to do stuff like that? Or conversely, should they stay out of the way and just report the shots that the various sides are taking at each other?

I'm of the opinion that the media's job is to report what happened (rather more exactly than they currently do) and to provide the background information on the subject. In cases like this, where some quick referrence reveals that they are full of shit, they should provide the real background.

That isn't to say that their job is to say, "This is incorrect!", but rather, it is their job to report the facts, and let people make a final descision (which, in this case, is "This is incorrect!").

I'd very much prefer a media which was concerned with providing a more detailed, more fact-based, service, but the media's sole bias is on making money, and that means that controversy and scandal sell before facts and deep research. They leave that to real scholars, I suppose. Nothing wrong with pushing half-truths, as long as the historians will now how your half-truths were wrong, I suppse. :rolleyes:

I was afraid that the elections would have this effect on NSG.

Now, instead of pointing out the various Republicans guilty of misdeeds, and responding to their defenders, you've been forced to play both sides of the fence. Don't worry, we'll have plenty to discuss, once the new Congress actually takes over.

But if Pelosi had actually backed Hastings for the Intel committee, things might have been different.

Ah... Trying to recreate the, "The corruption is a BI-partisan scandal! Please don't look at us! Look, a man behind a curtain!" argument, eh?

Yeah... When lies are this easy to see through (given the fact that a quick response shows that the claims against Pelosi were blatantly false), the "corruption" seems to not have a thing to do with the dems.

Just remember, it's your duty as an American to be part of a loyal oposition, but that doesn't mean that untruths should be the basis of your response to the party in power.

Tell you what--if you find Democrats guily of hypocrisy or better yet, actual criminal conduct, point it out. I've long said that I'm in favor of tossing the bastards out, no matter the party, and I'll stand by that. But if it's more of this kind of stuff--you know, half-reporting, spinning a legal land deal to look illegal like with Reid--then expect me to remain a staunch defender.

My hope is that there will be some policy issues to discuss. Maybe even a veto or two.

There are tolerable misdeeds and then there are the egregious ones. I doubt very much that there are any shining examples of ethical excellence on either side of the aisle. If we, meaning the press, look long and hard enough, we'll find a few dollars that were misappropriated from a campaign fund, or a contribution that shouldn't have been accepted in any member's past. Not that these were necessarily done with malicious intent, though, the FEC has made things far too complex.

As far as I'm concerned, each and every earmark that takes my tax money for the purpose of buying votes in a home district is a crime. I think that makes the whole bunch of them criminals.

You'll never see the streets full of working men protesting someone or something.
They use the less intelligent,unemployed cattle for that.I reject this claim as unsubstantiated and classist.