Overnight, D.C. District Court Judge Tim Kelly issued an order requiring the Trump administration to immediately reinstate MS NOW, CNN, and Politico’s White House access. But, this morning, MS NOW White House reporter Laura Barrón-López was denied access. She shares her experience. Former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade and New York Times Chief White House Correspondent Peter Baker also join Erielle Reshef to discuss the judge’s order.
I’d be an idiot to say here what I do for a living, but yes, I regularly deal with CEOs -and it’s precisely this experience that makes it all the more likely to me that a conspiracy like the one mentioned above is underway. While I’m nowhere near that level, I’m still quite familiar with the politics in companies with 500 or more employees. For me, this is all the more reason to entertain such thoughts, because I know of hardly any company where performance or competence is even remotely appreciated. The people I know as “the decision-makers” should actually be the very last ones to make decisions—they’re self-absorbed, unscrupulous people.
I regularly deal with CEOs -and it’s precisely this experience that makes it all the more likely to me that a conspiracy like the one mentioned above is underway.
I’m confused by this statement. If you’re familiar with the regular pockets of incompetence that is present in any leadership organization, what leads you to believe they would be successfully executing a broad coordinated conspiracy like this? I’m not suggesting its a lack of greed or narcissism at the top for them to try, but to actually succeed seems pretty unlikely to me.
Because they have the money to do so. Those who have it simply pay good people. You should know this if you’ve ever dealt with large companies. It doesn’t take good management—just the money to pay the people who do the work. You should also know that giant online corporations like Meta have an incredibly small number of employees compared to industrial companies, and labor is the biggest cost factor in any business.
What do you actually do for a living? You claim to have insights. Where did you get them?
Because they have the money to do so. Those who have it simply pay good people. You should know this if you’ve ever dealt with large companies. It doesn’t take good management—just the money to pay the people who do the work.
The problem isn’t the resources to execute, its forming a coherent strategy, and actually following through with it while balancing their own interests against their co-conspirators that are also all trying to do the same thing. Many times the failure is simply not forming the right initial question. If that step is messed up, then the best implemented plans are solving the wrong problem or addressing the right problem only incidentally at best.
You should also know that giant online corporations like Meta have an incredibly small number of employees compared to industrial companies,
What is leading you to that conclusion? Unless you’re intentionally omitting many offshore resources, the biggest tech giants rival large industrial companies. Meta has more employees than Exxon Mobile. Alphabet has more than 4x the number of employees as Bechtel. Microsoft has 100,000 more employees than Koch Inc.
Are there tech firms with a smaller headcount than other industrial firms? Sure. Even then, I’m not seeing where you’re going with the headcount-to-successful-conspiracy metric.
and labor is the biggest cost factor in any business.
I agree labor is the biggest cost of nearly all businesses. What does that have to do with the ability for a core group of leadership in multiple competitive organizations successfully coordinating a worldwide conspiracy?
What do you actually do for a living? You claim to have insights. Where did you get them?
I agree with your prior statement for myself too : “I’d be an idiot to say here what I do for a living”
If you want to dismiss my observations because I’m not presenting my bona fides, you’re welcome to.
I’d be an idiot to say here what I do for a living, but yes, I regularly deal with CEOs -and it’s precisely this experience that makes it all the more likely to me that a conspiracy like the one mentioned above is underway. While I’m nowhere near that level, I’m still quite familiar with the politics in companies with 500 or more employees. For me, this is all the more reason to entertain such thoughts, because I know of hardly any company where performance or competence is even remotely appreciated. The people I know as “the decision-makers” should actually be the very last ones to make decisions—they’re self-absorbed, unscrupulous people.
I’m confused by this statement. If you’re familiar with the regular pockets of incompetence that is present in any leadership organization, what leads you to believe they would be successfully executing a broad coordinated conspiracy like this? I’m not suggesting its a lack of greed or narcissism at the top for them to try, but to actually succeed seems pretty unlikely to me.
Because they have the money to do so. Those who have it simply pay good people. You should know this if you’ve ever dealt with large companies. It doesn’t take good management—just the money to pay the people who do the work. You should also know that giant online corporations like Meta have an incredibly small number of employees compared to industrial companies, and labor is the biggest cost factor in any business.
What do you actually do for a living? You claim to have insights. Where did you get them?
The problem isn’t the resources to execute, its forming a coherent strategy, and actually following through with it while balancing their own interests against their co-conspirators that are also all trying to do the same thing. Many times the failure is simply not forming the right initial question. If that step is messed up, then the best implemented plans are solving the wrong problem or addressing the right problem only incidentally at best.
What is leading you to that conclusion? Unless you’re intentionally omitting many offshore resources, the biggest tech giants rival large industrial companies. Meta has more employees than Exxon Mobile. Alphabet has more than 4x the number of employees as Bechtel. Microsoft has 100,000 more employees than Koch Inc.
Are there tech firms with a smaller headcount than other industrial firms? Sure. Even then, I’m not seeing where you’re going with the headcount-to-successful-conspiracy metric.
I agree labor is the biggest cost of nearly all businesses. What does that have to do with the ability for a core group of leadership in multiple competitive organizations successfully coordinating a worldwide conspiracy?
I agree with your prior statement for myself too : “I’d be an idiot to say here what I do for a living”
If you want to dismiss my observations because I’m not presenting my bona fides, you’re welcome to.