This article came out in the New York Review of Books several months ago. It is one of the very few articles I have seen in the mainstream media that was written by a non-educator and that recognizes that the 1% want to privatize public education.
Michael Massing published a two-part essay on the 1% and how journalists should cover them.
How should the media cover the power elite, he asks.
He writes:
Despite fizzling out within months, Occupy Wall Street succeeded in changing the terms of political discussion in America. Inequality, the concentration of wealth, the one percent, the new Gilded Age—all became fixtures of national debate thanks in part to the protesters who camped out in Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan. Even the Republican presidential candidates have felt compelled to address the matter. News organizations, meanwhile, have produced regular reports on the fortunes of the wealthy, the struggles of the middle class, and the travails of those left behind.
Even amid the outpouring of coverage of rising income inequality, however, the richest Americans have remained largely hidden from view. On all sides, billionaires are shaping policy, influencing opinion, promoting favorite causes, polishing their images—and carefully shielding themselves from scrutiny. Journalists have largely let them get away with it. News organizations need to find new ways to lift the veil off the superrich and lay bare their power and influence. Digital technology, with its flexibility, speed, boundless capacity, and ease of interactivity, seems ideally suited to this task, but only if it’s used more creatively than it has been to date.
And here is some detail on a member of the power elite:
To get an idea of how journalists might proceed, imagine for a moment that DealBook decided to adopt a new approach dedicated to revealing the power and influence of the financial elite. What might it look like? A good starting point is a DealBook posting that appeared in May on the “Top 5 Hedge Fund Earners.” For each, DealBook provided his 2014 earnings along with a brief biographical note. Heading the list was Kenneth Griffin, the CEO of the Chicago-based Citadel, whose income for the year came to a whopping $1.3 billion. Here in full was the accompanying note: “Mr. Griffin started by trading convertible bonds out of his dormitory at Harvard. His firm, Citadel, posted returns of 18 percent to investors in its flagship Kensington and Wellington funds.”
Appearing beneath the note was a link to two Times articles. One of them, from July 24, 2014, described the acrimonious divorce proceedings between Griffin and his wife, Anne Dias Griffin, who ran her own investment firm and who had helped elevate her husband’s status in the art world. The other article, dated April 2, 2015, described Griffin’s contribution of more than $1 million to Rahm Emanuel’s campaign for his second term as mayor of Chicago. It mentioned some of the large political donations Griffin has made in the past, including the more than $13 million he gave to Bruce Rauner, a Republican, in his successful campaign for governor of Illinois in 2014. The piece also noted that Griffin has given $150 million to Harvard College for its financial aid program and spent $30 million for two apartments in the Waldorf Astoria Chicago.
While useful, this information barely scratched the surface of Griffin’s influence. Going online, I tried to piece together a fuller picture. According to the Chicago Business Journal, Griffin is considered the richest person in Illinois. A post on CNBC’s website said that Citadel’s recent success “has arguably made Griffin the most powerful figure in hedge funds.” Unfortunately, it did not say what forms that power takes. At OpenSecrets.org—the excellent database of the Center for Responsive Politics—Griffin and his then wife are listed as the thirteenth-largest contributor to Super PACs in 2014, with large sums going to both American Crossroads (cofounded by Karl Rove) and America Rising, which does opposition research on Democratic candidates.
That’s pretty interesting that the same billionaire funded Rahm Emanuel, Bruce Rauner, and Republican super-PACs.
I will post the second part tomorrow.
Sit down and enjoy a good read.

Hedge fund managers have a lower tax rate than teachers and other wage earners. Unless campaign finance laws can be changed, the politicians bankrolled by hedge funders will ensure it stays that way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Huffpo reports today that Palmer Luckey, (who made $2 bil., when he sold his company to Facebook) funds the memes that malign Clinton. The Huffpo article references the anti-woman 4 Chan. Media reporting that linked political activities and clusters of attitudes, by firms’ principals, like men associated with Facebook- Thiel, Andreeson, Hastings, would shed light on the power that is eroding American democracy and reconfiguring the nation into a plutocratic vision.
LikeLike
4 Chan is just an anonymous forum, it is not anti-woman or anti- anything. That is like saying a soapbox in a public square has a policy position. Blame the message and the messengers, not the medium used to transmit the message.
Regarding paid messaging, it is well documented that Hillary’s hatchet man, David Brock, using superPAC money donated by billionaires, is paying an army of online activists to pump up Hillary and attack her detractors across a wide spectrum of social media.
I agree with you that the power of the superrich is eroding American democracy and building a plutocracy. What frightens me most is that it is happening with Trump AND with Hillary.
LikeLike
But “the Huffpo article references” it!
LikeLike
Thank you. Well said.
LikeLike
False equivalencies are the stock and trade of the right wing, e.g.
(1) Vile innuendos without substantiation, are similar to legitimate characterizations based on the opponent’s activities and expressed opinions (2) Charter schools are public schools (3) Union campaign donations are like contributions from the richest 0.1% (living in far distant wealthy enclaves) (4) The preponderance of messages at 4 Chan and 8 Chan create no site identity, they’re nothing more than a collective of divergent views (5) Hedge-fund and tech industry ed. blogs aren’t any more suspect than parent/teacher education blogs, etc.
The 400 families, who fund both parties, created plutocracy. The question in November, is which of the two candidates, is more likely to lean toward democratic values and implementation of democratic policies.
LikeLike
“The question in November, is which of the two candidates, is more likely to lean toward democratic values and implementation of democratic policies.”
What if the answer is neither one?
LikeLike
US Supreme Court appointments, Sotomayer and Ginsberg vs. Clarence Thomas and Scalia.
LikeLike
“Liberal” is not the same as “democratic”. Hillary’s picks are more likely to be “liberal” on issues such as LGBTQ rights and women’s issues, but both Trump’s or Hillary’s picks are equally likely to be corporatists fully supportive of the national security state and endless war. There is no democracy when the corporations rule the world.
LikeLike
Would you prefer Trump’s Supreme Court picks, pledged to roll back abortion rights, gay rights, regulations for climate change?
LikeLike
The fact that HRC is deeply indebted to the wealthiest class in the country, both financially and philosophically, as Thomas Frank has documented in his book Listen, Liberal, does not make her and Trump equally bad choices…in that they are the only 2 choices we have. HRC is “our” puppet of plutocrats…more certain to move the needle incrementally…whereas Trump will “govern” us back to some imaginary racist fascist antisemitic stone age. Life rarely offers a perfect choice (even though Sanders was a better one for the Democratic Party).
LikeLike
The question I was addressing wasn’t “are the two candidates equally bad?” The question was, “…which of the two candidates, is more likely to lean toward democratic values and implementation of democratic policies.”
The fact remains that neither candidate will lean toward democratic values or implement democratic policies, at least if “democratic” is defined as having to do with rule of the people/self-governance.
LikeLike
Dienne,
You keep arguing that there is no difference between Trump and Hillary.
The differences are many: women’s rights, civil rights, criminal justice, climate change, torture, gun control, nuclear proliferation, NATO.
If you don’t think it matters, if you would like to listen to the bombastic bully for four years, then throw your vote away.
I think he is a danger to our nation and to the world. This is a man who told veterans that if Iranian sailors in little boats made rude hand gestures, he would give an order to blow them out of the water. This is madness.
LikeLike
“stone age”, including Trump’s loathing of women that he perceives to be unattractive (the photo of Cruz’ wife), his objectification of attractive women and, his repulsion at women’s physiology.
LikeLike
Just in passing, if someone “earns” one billion dollars in a year, that means that if they worked the same number of hours as a statistical worker (40 hr per week, 50 weeks a year, holidays off) which they do not, they would “earn” … wait for it … $532,000 per hour. In one afternoon, these guys make more money than I made in almost 40 years as a college teacher.
I put earn in quotes because I do not think they are “earning” that money, they are just scamming the financial system. When you consider than most surgeons and rocket scientists don’t make in a year what these guys make in a day, you know that those “salaries” are not based upon talent.
LikeLike
The financial sector is worse than unproductive, they drag down GDP. The Roosevelt Institute recently published research showing how much the financial sector costs the average American. Wall Street is a substantial manacle on labor’s productivity, which is why they should be pilloried.
LikeLike
Thanks Diane for this, which I would have missed had i t not been for you. You tie it ALL together as “they take over and destroy PUBLIC EDUCATION.
Cross-posted on.
http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Reimagining-Journalism-Th-in-Life_Arts-Billionaires_Inequality_Influence-Buying_Media-160923-351.html
LikeLike
How to Cover the 1%…
Quiz ’em first.
What form of capitalism goals your end? Democracy Capitalism, Rusky Capitalism,
Thatcher Capitalism…
Where does success end and greed begin in the various flavors of capitalism?
Which flavor better needs your suit?
LikeLike
The 99% must begin paying attention.
LikeLike
http://theconversation.com/public-universities-are-under-threat-not-just-by-outside-reformers-65705?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20September%2023%202016%20-%205656&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20September%2023%202016%20-%205656+CID_b357ae59e67d8b7e8db4e7637b2cc264&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=Public%20universities%20are%20under%20threat%20%20not%20just%20by%20outside%20reformers
The above link is an apologist corporate reform hack on ‘blame the victim’ and, for the most part, not that different from Chicago Trib articles you’ve written about recently.
http://www.starvingthebeast.net/
This is the trailer of the movie, which shows exactly what is happening to Public Schools is happening to Colleges too.
LikeLike
Pip, where can I watch the “Starving the Beast?” https://vimeo.com/174737585
LikeLike
George Carlin – genius
LikeLike
Hi Therlo:
Thank you for the link of George Carlin. I really enjoy listen to his genius. Back2basic
LikeLike
Good video. The one after, titled “You have no rights”, is about the main ideological weapon.
Who do we have today, eloquently and bluntly expressing our anger?
LikeLike