"Talking your book" is a phrase used to describe investors who constantly tout the stocks--sometimes called a "book," as in portfolio book--they are holding. It's perfectly legal, of course, to buy a stock and then brag about how great the company is, in hopes of seeing the stock price rise--unless, of course, there's some sort of deception involved.
But of course, one obvious problem with talking your book is that it tends to be predictable, relentless, un-nuanced, and thus, well, boring. You know, like Soviet TV in the bad old days. It's obvious, it's upfront, but it's not interesting. (And, come to think of it, it might not be entirely honest.)
Nobody can accuse MSNBC of hiding its relationship with General Electric, because GE, of course, owns MSNBC. But still, its interesting to see MSNBC launching a big series on environmental themes, while at the same time, GE is a member of the US Climate Action Partnership, a mostly corporate group that lobbies for pro-corporate environmental law changes, such as "cap and trade." Cap-and-trade, of course, would be a bonanza for Wall Street. And other law changes, such as requiring that a certain percentage of energy be generated by windmills, is obviously good for windmill makers, including GE. Hence the confusion: Who is MSNBC working for? The viewers? Or for GE? Or for GE + USCAP? Or is the ultimate employer now Uncle Sam? That seems the most likely now--Uncle Sam is the Big Boss.
There's a lesson here, about the nature of corporations, that most liberals, and most conservatives, don't understand. And that is, corporations aren't inherently right, or left--they are inherently corporate. They are no better or worse than the people who run them, although the corporate structure does allow for a largeness and a permanence that some people love and others loathe.
In any case, GE, thoroughly controlled now, by the federal government, stands to gain from active environmental regulation in two ways. First, as noted, GE is in the windmill business, and lots of other energy-related businesses, as well. And second, because of the government's bailout for GE Capital, GE has to do something for the government in return. And a little enviro-apple polishing--Jeff Immelt as a leading "teacher's pet" for Principal Obama--can't hurt.
The only problem, of course, is that the actual product of such calculation can be boring. And so we come to "Future Earth: Journey to the End of the World," the first part of which ran on MSNBC last night--warning, three more parts to go!
Here's Tom Shales, a liberal, albeit a smart and witty one, writing for The Washington Post, describing the show as "boring." Once again, that's what you get when non-creative, non-audience-minded objectives drive programming. MSNBC was under orders to put on a show that satisfied a) the corporate-suit liberals (or corporate-suit conservatives masquerading as liberals), and b) the political liberals in Washington.
One variable that might have perked up the show--works to perk up any show, in fact--is a sense of argument and debate. You know, drama, tension, resolution. All that. And so, for example, if MSNBC had featured Benny Peiser, a leading global-warming debunker. I am not saying that Peiser is right, but I am saying that a discussion/debate with Peiser would be interesting.
Instead, we just got dreary propaganda from MSNBC, which even WaPo liberals disdain. But hey, from their point of view, it pays the bills!
