Chris Hayes Scolds Other Cable Networks For Irresponsible Plane Speculation
Chris Hayes takes a look at some of the more ridiculous coverage regarding Malaysia Flight 370.
Chris Hayes Scolds Other Cable Networks For Irresponsible Plane Speculation
Showing posts with label Networks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Networks. Show all posts
Friday, March 21, 2014
Chris Hayes Scolds Other Cable Networks For Irresponsible Plane Speculation
Chris Hayes Scolds Other Cable Networks For Irresponsible Plane Speculation
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Networks’ Discussions of Fed Stimulus 91 Percent Positive
ABC, CBS and NBC mostly ignore criticism of quantitative easing and evidence it has done little to stimulate economy.
After spending about $ 2.3 trillion in stimulus since 2008, the Federal Reserve’s controversial quantitative easing (QE) strategy’s days may be numbered. MarketWatch expected a decision on the policy from the Fed on Dec. 18, following their two-day meeting.
The policy has many critics including the former Fed employee who lashed out at it in a “Confessions of a Quantitative Easer” op-ed. Studies also show that QE hasn’t been the economic stimulus the Fed had hoped. Yet, when the broadcast networks have discussed how QE impacts the economy they almost unanimously supported the Fed’s purchase program.
In three months of coverage, from Sept. 1 to Dec. 1, ABC, CBS and NBC news programs were overwhelmingly positive about the Federal Reserve spending $ 85 billion per month. Out of 11 stories that discussed the effect of QE on the economy, 10 of them were positive (91 percent), while only one suggested continuing the fiscal policy could harm the economy. An additional 13 stories during that time mentioned QE, but did not discuss its relationship to the economy at all so they could not be viewed as positive or negative.
Despite the broadcast network’s positive portrayal of QE, academics and even former Fed officials have criticized the efficacy of the program and described it is a massive subsidy to big banks and Wall Street.
The Federal Reserve announced Sept. 18 that it would continue QE, although there had been much speculation that it would begin to taper the program. ABC’s George Stephanopoulos praised the decision on “Good Morning America” Sept. 19. He called it a “welcome surprise to traders that kept markets climbing around the world.”
Like Stephanopoulos, the networks overwhelmingly supported the Fed’s quantitative easing process, heralding the continuation of Fed stimulus as good news. They emphasized its role in supporting the economy and boosting the stock market.
Prior to that September meeting, the networks hyped the extent that the Fed helped support the economy and create jobs. On Sept. 6, CBS Senior Business Analyst Jill Schlesinger told “This Morning” viewers that “It’s like the economy is an athlete and we’re injured, and the Fed’s been pumping steroids into that athlete until the athlete’s better.”
Later on ABC’s Rebecca Jarvis also praised it for boosting the stock market, saying on “Good Morning America” Nov. 18, “The last six weeks, stocks have gained every single week. And a big part of this is the Federal Reserve continuing to pump billions of dollars in stimulus into the markets.”
Of the 11 network stories that discussed QE’s effect on the economy, only one NBC story indicated possible problems. NBC’s Savannah Guthrie suggested the decision to continue the policy could have negative consequences on “Today” Sept. 19. She said the Fed’s announcement to continue QE “has spurred a global rally in stocks. But it may not necessarily be good news for the economy.” But Guthrie did not explain why the continuation might be bad news.
QE: Not So Stimulative
Under quantitative easing, the Federal Reserve has spent billions on bank assets and bonds each month since late 2008. The purpose was to increase bank reserves and lower interest rates for loans and mortgages. By lowering interest rates, the Fed hoped to help consumer and business spending and borrowing, ideally stimulating the economy and creating jobs.
Critics generally described quantitative easing as ineffective, despite the incredible amount of money involved. The financial paper Investor’s Business Daily reported on Aug. 19 that two Fed economists found QE’s benefit to the economy was “virtually nonexistent.” The economists analyzed the second phase of quantitative easing (QE2), between 2010 and 2012, and found that it“likely boosted GDP by a mere 0.13 percentage point,” resulting in $ 200 billion added to the economy. Not a lot of bang for $ 600 billion.
Moreover, one academic study into quantitative easing found that the program was actually harmful to the economy. Dr. Robert E. Hall, Stanford professor of economics and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, argued that “an expansion of reserves contracts the economy.” When the Fed buys assets as part of quantitative easing, it swells the amount of money that private banks have on reserve. According to Dr. Hall, these increasing reserves actively damaged the economy.
Rather than restoring the overall economy, some say quantitative easing has benefited a particular group of people: wealthy bankers. Andrew Huszar, who managed Fed security purchases in 2009 and 2010, explained this phenomenon in blistering critique of quantitative easing published in the Nov. 11 Wall Street Journal.
Huszar claimed that QE provided “only trivial relief for Main Street,” while it was “an absolute coup for Wall Street.” Building on Hall’s criticism, Huszar explained how the banks, despite growing reserves, “were only issuing fewer and fewer loans” and weren’t “helping to make credit any more accessible for the average American.”
In the end, Huszar argued that, as a result of quantitative easing and its benefits for big banks, “the Fed had lost any remaining ability to think independently from Wall Street.”
Despite such benefits for Wall Street, many bankers are still critical of the program or at least of its continuation. According to the Des Moines Register, Mark Vitner, Wells Fargo’s senior economist, claimed that uncertainty over the end of quantitative easing “is creating a lot of angst for businesses and households, and folks are putting off key decisions.” He said the policy had done all the good it would and that it was time to “rip the Band-Aid off.”
In addition, Barry Sternlicht, CEO of the investment firm Starwood Capital Group, likened quantitative easing to “a heroin addition” in a Nov. 5 CNBC interview. He urged the Fed to discontinue the program, saying “It’s not good. This is not good, and – and this is not smart.”
Networks’ Discussions of Fed Stimulus 91 Percent Positive
Monday, December 2, 2013
Saturday, November 23, 2013
NSA: Not Only Snooping But Infecting Computer Networks Worldwide
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
November 23, 2013
Not only does the NSA snoop your personal communications, the agency also excels at infecting computer networks with malicious software.
Recently discovered Snowden information reveals the NSA infected more than 50,000 computer networks worldwide with malware, the Dutch news outlet NRC.nl reports.
Edward Snowden, the former NSA analyst roundly excoriated by government as a dangerous leaker, has revealed that more than 50,000 computer networks worldwide have been infected.
A management presentation shows how the surveillance agency uses “Computer Network Exploitation” (CNE) in more than 50,000 locations. “CNE is the secret infiltration of computer systems achieved by installing malware, malicious software,” reports the Dutch website, NRC.nl.
The NSA has a special department dedicated to malicious hacking. Tailored Access Operation, or TAO, has more than a thousand hackers hired to go after targeted networks.
In August, the Washington Post reported that TAO had installed an estimated 20,000 “implants” beginning in 2008 and by the middle of last year the number had jumped to 50,000. The implants act as “sleeper cells” that are controlled at will.
“Computer hacks are relatively inexpensive and provide the NSA with opportunities to obtain information that they otherwise would not have access to,” write Floor Boon, Steven Derix and Huib Modderkolk. “The NSA-presentation shows their CNE-operations in countries such as Venezuela and Brazil. The malware installed in these countries can remain active for years without being detected.”
NSA referred inquiries about the revelations to the U.S. government. A government spokesperson said the disclosure of classified information endangers U.S. national security.
This article was posted: Saturday, November 23, 2013 at 11:22 am
NSA: Not Only Snooping But Infecting Computer Networks Worldwide
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Study shows TV networks blamed GOP for shutdown
From our “Why am I not surprised” file, the Media Research Center conducted a study of TV network news coverage during the shutdown and discovered that the coverage almost universally blamed Republicans.
“What those viewers heard,” according to the MRC analysis, “was a version of the shutdown story that could easily have emanated from Barack Obama’s own White House.”
“This current government shutdown traces its history back to a determined core of GOP House members who are vehemently against Obamacare and were willing to shut down the government because of it,” Brian Williams said on the Oct. 14 broadcast of “NBC Nightly News,” MRC’s Rich Noyes noted in a blog post announcing the study.
Of the 124 stories broadcast on the ABC, NBC and CBS nightly newscasts about the shutdown from Oct. 1 through Oct. 15, the study found 41 blamed Republicans or conservatives for the impasse, 17 blamed both sides and none specifically blamed Democrats.
In the two weeks leading up to the shutdown, the MRC said, the same networks ran 21 stories blaming Republicans, four blaming both sides and none blaming Democrats.
That’s 62 blaming Republicans and none blaming Democrats for those of you keeping score at home.
But those numbers mirror polls conducted before and during the shutdown, which found most Americans blamed the GOP for the shutdown. In one, 62 percent of respondents blamed Republicans for the shutdown, while less than half blamed Obama or the Democrats in Congress.
According to TruthRevolt.org, another conservative site, the slant against the GOP was equally evident in print. The Washington Post and New York Times, the site said, “covered victims of the government shutdown over victims of Obamacare by a margin of 100 to 1.”
Media Matters, the progressive research center that monitors conservative media, has yet to publish a similar study on the shutdown coverage.
The MRC study did not include cable news, which had mostly wall-to-wall coverage of the shutdown since it began on Oct. 1. CNN, for example, ran on-screen shutdown and debt ceiling deadline clocks for virtually the entire impasse and consistently featured interviews with moderate Republicans who disagreed with the tea party’s tactic.
Of course the polls would say it’s the GOP’s fault. Viewers had been told for weeks in advance that any shutdown would be the fault of Republicans. It’s no surprise, therefore, the viewers would hold the opinion they did.
I didn’t watch much cable coverage during the shutdown, largely because it’s so predictable. But what I saw was pretty rank. MSNBC was actually comical, taking the position that of course it was the GOP’s fault now how to we stifle these crazy peoplke?
Face it: THe GOP doesn’t do media strategy except to preach to the converted. The reason that the “moderates” were all over the news was because many conservatives refuse to even talk to CNN, MSNBC, or the networks. That’s a mistake. At the very least, a record must be established that counters the dominant narrrative. It may not sway a lot of people, but it never hurts to get your message out.
Study shows TV networks blamed GOP for shutdown
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
VIDEO: For TV Shows, It"s a Seller"s Market
Growing demand for original TV series to satisfy broadcasters, cable TV channels and online video is creating a scarcity of writers, directors and even actors available to produce certain types of shows. Keach Hagey reports.
Thanks for checking us out. Please take a look at the rest of our videos and articles.
To stay in the loop, bookmark our homepage.
VIDEO: For TV Shows, It"s a Seller"s Market
Friday, May 31, 2013
Networks Bashed Tea Party Before IRS Probe
Broadcast news shows called small government protesters ‘anti-tax’ and ‘anti-government.’
The Tea Party grassroots protesters have made no secret of their support for limited government and lower taxes. But from the perspective of network reporters and anchors, the Tea Party’s message was more radical: “no government” and “no taxes.”
On May 10, the IRS admitted to flagging more than 100 Tea Party-related applications for higher scrutiny, including applications that included the words “Tea Party” and “patriot.” But even before that targeting began, the networks had portrayed the Tea Party as a extreme group opposed to taxation, instead of one supporting smaller government.
Even before the IRS scandal came to light, ABC, CBS and NBC referred to the Tea Party movement as “anti-tax activists.” In one instance, it was CBS’s political director, and political correspondent for the liberal online magazine Slate, John Dickerson, on Dec. 2, 2012, “Face the Nation” who used that phrase.
But he wasn’t alone in that view of the Tea Party, which was repeated over and over again in recent years. On Nov 8, 2011, “Today” show host Ann Curry spoke of “the Tea Party’s anti-government rhetoric.”
Similarly, correspondent Mike Viqueira told NBC “Nightly News” viewers, “[T]his Weekend Tea Party backed anti-tax rallies were held across the country,” on April 16, 2011.
On the Oct. 7, 2010, edition of CBS “Evening News,” correspondent Dean Reynolds interviewed a Chicago resident who said that “They [the Tea Party] represent a very small sliver of Americans who are upset about paying taxes. There is [sic] always going to be people who don’t want to pay taxes” to illustrate an apparent disparity between the views of the Tea Party and the views of most Americans. No defense of the Tea Party was offered in the segment.
CBS’s Bob Schieffer interviewed the liberal “watchdog” ProPublica’s Kim Barker (See related article) on “Face the Nation” on Aug. 19, 2012. Barker complained that political groups, especially conservative ones, were trying to mask themselves as nonprofits. Schieffer seemed appalled at that picture she painted of nonprofits evading IRS scrutiny, concluding the segment with “that’s an eye opener.” ProPublica has received $ 300,000 from liberal billionaire George Soros’s Open Society Foundations since 2000, but the Soros connection was not mentioned during the interview.
Networks Bashed Tea Party Before IRS Probe
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
How Social Networks Drive Black Unemployment
It’s easy to believe the worst is over in the economic downturn. But for African-Americans, the pain continues — over 13 percent of black workers are unemployed, nearly twice the national average. And that’s not a new development: regardless of the economy, job prospects for African-Americans have long been significantly worse than for the country as a whole.
The most obvious explanation for this entrenched disparity is racial discrimination. But in my research I have found a somewhat different culprit: favoritism. Getting an inside edge by using help from family and friends is a powerful, hidden force driving inequality in the United States.
Such favoritism has a strong racial component. Through such seemingly innocuous networking, white Americans tend to help other whites, because social resources are concentrated among whites. If African-Americans are not part of the same networks, they will have a harder time finding decent jobs.
The mechanism that reproduces inequality, in other words, may be inclusion more than exclusion. And while exclusion or discrimination is illegal, inclusion or favoritism is not — meaning it can be more insidious and largely immune to legal challenges.
Favoritism is almost universal in today’s job market. In interviews with hundreds of people on this topic, I found that all but a handful used the help of family and friends to find 70 percent of the jobs they held over their lifetimes; they all used personal networks and insider information if it was available to them.
In this context of widespread networking, the idea that there is a job “market” based solely on skills, qualifications and merit is false. Whenever possible, Americans seeking jobs try to avoid market competition: they look for unequal rather than equal opportunity. In fact, the last thing job seekers want to face is equal opportunity; they want an advantage. They want to find ways to cut in line and get ahead.
You don’t usually need a strong social network to land a low-wage job at a fast-food restaurant or retail store. But trying to land a coveted position that offers a good salary and benefits is a different story. To gain an edge, job seekers actively work connections with friends and family members in pursuit of these opportunities.
Help is not given to just anyone, nor is it available from everyone. Inequality reproduces itself because help is typically reserved for people who are “like me”: the people who live in my neighborhood, those who attend my church or school or those with whom I have worked in the past. It is only natural that when there are jobs to be had, people who know about them will tell the people who are close to them, those with whom they identify, and those who at some point can reciprocate the favor.
Because we still live largely segregated lives, such networking fosters categorical inequality: whites help other whites, especially when unemployment is high. Although people from every background may try to help their own, whites are more likely to hold the sorts of jobs that are protected from market competition, that pay a living wage and that have the potential to teach skills and allow for job training and advancement. So, just as opportunities are unequally distributed, they are also unequally redistributed.
All of this may make sense intuitively, but most people are unaware of the way racial ties affect their job prospects.
When I asked my interviewees what most contributed to their level of career success, they usually discussed how hard they had worked and how uncertain were the outcomes — not the help they had received throughout their lives to gain most of their jobs. In fact, only 14 percent mentioned that they had received help of any kind from others. Seeing contemporary labor-market politics through the lens of favoritism, rather than discrimination alone, is revealing. It explains, for example, why even though the majority of all Americans, including whites, support civil rights in principle, there is widespread opposition on the part of many whites to affirmative action policies — despite complaints about “reverse discrimination,” my research demonstrated that the real complaint is that affirmative action undermines long-established patterns of favoritism.
The interviewees in my study who were most angry about affirmative action were those who had relatively fewer marketable skills — and were therefore most dependent on getting an inside edge for the best jobs. Whites who felt entitled to these positions believed that affirmative action was unfair because it blocked their own privileged access.
But interviewees’ feelings about such policies betrayed the reality of their experience of them. I found these attitudes evident among my interviewees — even though, among the 1,463 jobs they discussed with me, there were only two cases in which someone might have been passed over for a job because of affirmative action policies benefiting African-Americans. These data are consistent with other research on affirmative action.
There’s no question that discrimination is still a problem in the American economy. But whites helping other whites is not the same as discrimination, and it is not illegal. Yet it may have a powerful effect on the access that African-Americans and other minorities have to good jobs, or even to the job market itself.
Nancy DiTomaso, the vice dean for faculty and research and a professor of management and global business at Rutgers Business School, is the author of “The American Non-Dilemma: Racial Inequality Without Racism.”
Opinionator» The Great Divide
How Social Networks Drive Black Unemployment
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
How Social Networks Drive Black Unemployment
It’s easy to believe the worst is over in the economic downturn. But for African-Americans, the pain continues — over 13 percent of black workers are unemployed, nearly twice the national average. And that’s not a new development: regardless of the economy, job prospects for African-Americans have long been significantly worse than for the country as a whole.
The most obvious explanation for this entrenched disparity is racial discrimination. But in my research I have found a somewhat different culprit: favoritism. Getting an inside edge by using help from family and friends is a powerful, hidden force driving inequality in the United States.
Such favoritism has a strong racial component. Through such seemingly innocuous networking, white Americans tend to help other whites, because social resources are concentrated among whites. If African-Americans are not part of the same networks, they will have a harder time finding decent jobs.
The mechanism that reproduces inequality, in other words, may be inclusion more than exclusion. And while exclusion or discrimination is illegal, inclusion or favoritism is not — meaning it can be more insidious and largely immune to legal challenges.
Favoritism is almost universal in today’s job market. In interviews with hundreds of people on this topic, I found that all but a handful used the help of family and friends to find 70 percent of the jobs they held over their lifetimes; they all used personal networks and insider information if it was available to them.
In this context of widespread networking, the idea that there is a job “market” based solely on skills, qualifications and merit is false. Whenever possible, Americans seeking jobs try to avoid market competition: they look for unequal rather than equal opportunity. In fact, the last thing job seekers want to face is equal opportunity; they want an advantage. They want to find ways to cut in line and get ahead.
You don’t usually need a strong social network to land a low-wage job at a fast-food restaurant or retail store. But trying to land a coveted position that offers a good salary and benefits is a different story. To gain an edge, job seekers actively work connections with friends and family members in pursuit of these opportunities.
Help is not given to just anyone, nor is it available from everyone. Inequality reproduces itself because help is typically reserved for people who are “like me”: the people who live in my neighborhood, those who attend my church or school or those with whom I have worked in the past. It is only natural that when there are jobs to be had, people who know about them will tell the people who are close to them, those with whom they identify, and those who at some point can reciprocate the favor.
Because we still live largely segregated lives, such networking fosters categorical inequality: whites help other whites, especially when unemployment is high. Although people from every background may try to help their own, whites are more likely to hold the sorts of jobs that are protected from market competition, that pay a living wage and that have the potential to teach skills and allow for job training and advancement. So, just as opportunities are unequally distributed, they are also unequally redistributed.
All of this may make sense intuitively, but most people are unaware of the way racial ties affect their job prospects.
When I asked my interviewees what most contributed to their level of career success, they usually discussed how hard they had worked and how uncertain were the outcomes — not the help they had received throughout their lives to gain most of their jobs. In fact, only 14 percent mentioned that they had received help of any kind from others. Seeing contemporary labor-market politics through the lens of favoritism, rather than discrimination alone, is revealing. It explains, for example, why even though the majority of all Americans, including whites, support civil rights in principle, there is widespread opposition on the part of many whites to affirmative action policies — despite complaints about “reverse discrimination,” my research demonstrated that the real complaint is that affirmative action undermines long-established patterns of favoritism.
The interviewees in my study who were most angry about affirmative action were those who had relatively fewer marketable skills — and were therefore most dependent on getting an inside edge for the best jobs. Whites who felt entitled to these positions believed that affirmative action was unfair because it blocked their own privileged access.
But interviewees’ feelings about such policies betrayed the reality of their experience of them. I found these attitudes evident among my interviewees — even though, among the 1,463 jobs they discussed with me, there were only two cases in which someone might have been passed over for a job because of affirmative action policies benefiting African-Americans. These data are consistent with other research on affirmative action.
There’s no question that discrimination is still a problem in the American economy. But whites helping other whites is not the same as discrimination, and it is not illegal. Yet it may have a powerful effect on the access that African-Americans and other minorities have to good jobs, or even to the job market itself.
Nancy DiTomaso, the vice dean for faculty and research and a professor of management and global business at Rutgers Business School, is the author of “The American Non-Dilemma: Racial Inequality Without Racism.”
Opinionator» The Great Divide
How Social Networks Drive Black Unemployment
How Social Networks Drive Black Unemployment
It’s easy to believe the worst is over in the economic downturn. But for African-Americans, the pain continues — over 13 percent of black workers are unemployed, nearly twice the national average. And that’s not a new development: regardless of the economy, job prospects for African-Americans have long been significantly worse than for the country as a whole.
The most obvious explanation for this entrenched disparity is racial discrimination. But in my research I have found a somewhat different culprit: favoritism. Getting an inside edge by using help from family and friends is a powerful, hidden force driving inequality in the United States.
Such favoritism has a strong racial component. Through such seemingly innocuous networking, white Americans tend to help other whites, because social resources are concentrated among whites. If African-Americans are not part of the same networks, they will have a harder time finding decent jobs.
The mechanism that reproduces inequality, in other words, may be inclusion more than exclusion. And while exclusion or discrimination is illegal, inclusion or favoritism is not — meaning it can be more insidious and largely immune to legal challenges.
Favoritism is almost universal in today’s job market. In interviews with hundreds of people on this topic, I found that all but a handful used the help of family and friends to find 70 percent of the jobs they held over their lifetimes; they all used personal networks and insider information if it was available to them.
In this context of widespread networking, the idea that there is a job “market” based solely on skills, qualifications and merit is false. Whenever possible, Americans seeking jobs try to avoid market competition: they look for unequal rather than equal opportunity. In fact, the last thing job seekers want to face is equal opportunity; they want an advantage. They want to find ways to cut in line and get ahead.
You don’t usually need a strong social network to land a low-wage job at a fast-food restaurant or retail store. But trying to land a coveted position that offers a good salary and benefits is a different story. To gain an edge, job seekers actively work connections with friends and family members in pursuit of these opportunities.
Help is not given to just anyone, nor is it available from everyone. Inequality reproduces itself because help is typically reserved for people who are “like me”: the people who live in my neighborhood, those who attend my church or school or those with whom I have worked in the past. It is only natural that when there are jobs to be had, people who know about them will tell the people who are close to them, those with whom they identify, and those who at some point can reciprocate the favor.
Because we still live largely segregated lives, such networking fosters categorical inequality: whites help other whites, especially when unemployment is high. Although people from every background may try to help their own, whites are more likely to hold the sorts of jobs that are protected from market competition, that pay a living wage and that have the potential to teach skills and allow for job training and advancement. So, just as opportunities are unequally distributed, they are also unequally redistributed.
All of this may make sense intuitively, but most people are unaware of the way racial ties affect their job prospects.
When I asked my interviewees what most contributed to their level of career success, they usually discussed how hard they had worked and how uncertain were the outcomes — not the help they had received throughout their lives to gain most of their jobs. In fact, only 14 percent mentioned that they had received help of any kind from others. Seeing contemporary labor-market politics through the lens of favoritism, rather than discrimination alone, is revealing. It explains, for example, why even though the majority of all Americans, including whites, support civil rights in principle, there is widespread opposition on the part of many whites to affirmative action policies — despite complaints about “reverse discrimination,” my research demonstrated that the real complaint is that affirmative action undermines long-established patterns of favoritism.
The interviewees in my study who were most angry about affirmative action were those who had relatively fewer marketable skills — and were therefore most dependent on getting an inside edge for the best jobs. Whites who felt entitled to these positions believed that affirmative action was unfair because it blocked their own privileged access.
But interviewees’ feelings about such policies betrayed the reality of their experience of them. I found these attitudes evident among my interviewees — even though, among the 1,463 jobs they discussed with me, there were only two cases in which someone might have been passed over for a job because of affirmative action policies benefiting African-Americans. These data are consistent with other research on affirmative action.
There’s no question that discrimination is still a problem in the American economy. But whites helping other whites is not the same as discrimination, and it is not illegal. Yet it may have a powerful effect on the access that African-Americans and other minorities have to good jobs, or even to the job market itself.
Nancy DiTomaso, the vice dean for faculty and research and a professor of management and global business at Rutgers Business School, is the author of “The American Non-Dilemma: Racial Inequality Without Racism.”
Opinionator» The Great Divide
How Social Networks Drive Black Unemployment
Monday, May 6, 2013
How Social Networks Drive Black Unemployment
It’s easy to believe the worst is over in the economic downturn. But for African-Americans, the pain continues — over 13 percent of black workers are unemployed, nearly twice the national average. And that’s not a new development: regardless of the economy, job prospects for African-Americans have long been significantly worse than for the country as a whole.
The most obvious explanation for this entrenched disparity is racial discrimination. But in my research I have found a somewhat different culprit: favoritism. Getting an inside edge by using help from family and friends is a powerful, hidden force driving inequality in the United States.
Such favoritism has a strong racial component. Through such seemingly innocuous networking, white Americans tend to help other whites, because social resources are concentrated among whites. If African-Americans are not part of the same networks, they will have a harder time finding decent jobs.
The mechanism that reproduces inequality, in other words, may be inclusion more than exclusion. And while exclusion or discrimination is illegal, inclusion or favoritism is not — meaning it can be more insidious and largely immune to legal challenges.
Favoritism is almost universal in today’s job market. In interviews with hundreds of people on this topic, I found that all but a handful used the help of family and friends to find 70 percent of the jobs they held over their lifetimes; they all used personal networks and insider information if it was available to them.
In this context of widespread networking, the idea that there is a job “market” based solely on skills, qualifications and merit is false. Whenever possible, Americans seeking jobs try to avoid market competition: they look for unequal rather than equal opportunity. In fact, the last thing job seekers want to face is equal opportunity; they want an advantage. They want to find ways to cut in line and get ahead.
You don’t usually need a strong social network to land a low-wage job at a fast-food restaurant or retail store. But trying to land a coveted position that offers a good salary and benefits is a different story. To gain an edge, job seekers actively work connections with friends and family members in pursuit of these opportunities.
Help is not given to just anyone, nor is it available from everyone. Inequality reproduces itself because help is typically reserved for people who are “like me”: the people who live in my neighborhood, those who attend my church or school or those with whom I have worked in the past. It is only natural that when there are jobs to be had, people who know about them will tell the people who are close to them, those with whom they identify, and those who at some point can reciprocate the favor.
Because we still live largely segregated lives, such networking fosters categorical inequality: whites help other whites, especially when unemployment is high. Although people from every background may try to help their own, whites are more likely to hold the sorts of jobs that are protected from market competition, that pay a living wage and that have the potential to teach skills and allow for job training and advancement. So, just as opportunities are unequally distributed, they are also unequally redistributed.
All of this may make sense intuitively, but most people are unaware of the way racial ties affect their job prospects.
When I asked my interviewees what most contributed to their level of career success, they usually discussed how hard they had worked and how uncertain were the outcomes — not the help they had received throughout their lives to gain most of their jobs. In fact, only 14 percent mentioned that they had received help of any kind from others. Seeing contemporary labor-market politics through the lens of favoritism, rather than discrimination alone, is revealing. It explains, for example, why even though the majority of all Americans, including whites, support civil rights in principle, there is widespread opposition on the part of many whites to affirmative action policies — despite complaints about “reverse discrimination,” my research demonstrated that the real complaint is that affirmative action undermines long-established patterns of favoritism.
The interviewees in my study who were most angry about affirmative action were those who had relatively fewer marketable skills — and were therefore most dependent on getting an inside edge for the best jobs. Whites who felt entitled to these positions believed that affirmative action was unfair because it blocked their own privileged access.
But interviewees’ feelings about such policies betrayed the reality of their experience of them. I found these attitudes evident among my interviewees — even though, among the 1,463 jobs they discussed with me, there were only two cases in which someone might have been passed over for a job because of affirmative action policies benefiting African-Americans. These data are consistent with other research on affirmative action.
There’s no question that discrimination is still a problem in the American economy. But whites helping other whites is not the same as discrimination, and it is not illegal. Yet it may have a powerful effect on the access that African-Americans and other minorities have to good jobs, or even to the job market itself.
Nancy DiTomaso, the vice dean for faculty and research and a professor of management and global business at Rutgers Business School, is the author of “The American Non-Dilemma: Racial Inequality Without Racism.”
Opinionator» The Great Divide
How Social Networks Drive Black Unemployment
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)