The interview

Multinational corporations (MNCs) are lead by CEOs our society has given a status somewhere between folk and super hero, the adoration we bestow upon them could be mistaken for worship. The sensational hype regarding their every move and the keen interest we have in their personal lives has sparked an industry, the business media industry. Business media corporations compete with one another to land the 'big' interviews, the ones with the rich and powerful they know we want to hear from. There's big money at stake and landing interviews with CEOs, the biggest of the business celebrities helps to ensure large audiences which translate into more ad dollars, to say nothing of the ad dollars under the CEO's control. The business media is dedicated to helping them broadcast their message, their business is after all 'broadcast' journalism.

Business media corporations owe their existence to our appetite for wanting to hear everything business celebrities have to say. They've become omnipresent in our society as their faces are plastered for us to see on newsstands and TV shows everywhere, all day everyday. They seem endowed with magnetic personalities we are drawn to them and listen to their every word, desperate for the wisdom we are told can be found in their plain speak. Next to politicians and Hollywood celebrities they are the ones we see most often featured in the news, as their words are quoted and actions imitated.

We struggle to stay abreast in a dynamic business climate as we scan the channels and publications for information. Having information is important, but just as important is realizing where the information comes from. Business media organizations are designed to give business and political leaders an authoritative platform allowing them to broadcast their views, uninterrupted and unquestioned, to us. The people we are watching have made a conscious decision to dedicate their lives to steering countless billions of dollars in profits to the wealthiest Top 1% of the world's population, the shareholders of corporations, or as George W Bush says, his constituency. These shareholders control 90% of the shares of publicly traded companies and they are who we give our money to each time we buy something made by a publicly traded company. The CEO is one of them, the Top 1% and he works hard to help them, not us and that is why we need to be careful when we listen to what he has to say.

We turn to the business media to get informed opinions, but we need to consider who is informing those opinions. The business media is not a public service organization, they, like the businesses they cover are for profit institutions dedicated to maximizing the wealth of their shareholders. We take what they say as fact, without taking the time to think through who's asking the questions and more importantly, who's doing the talking. Everyone has an agenda and we can only imagine the agenda of people who run multibillion dollar operations and take the time to talk to us!

More and more business media corporations are being vertically integrated into the largest of the MNCs. These business conglomerates give the CEO unprecedented power by allowing them to control the information we are given access to, in no small way helping them control our thoughts. With a few phone calls to the managers they've hired to run their studios, they decide what information is broadcast, when and how often, giving shape to our view of the world. The information they want controlled can be decreased or increased in frequency and amplitude depending on their need. No news can be turned into small news, small news can be turned into big news, big news can be made to go away, certain people are vilified and others turned into heroes, information is power in the information age.

The bringing together of big media and big business also gives CEOs a stage to manage, one that they know we will turn to, particularly during times of crisis, which seem to be occurring more often. As the business and political elite who run our society are paraded across the stage, they help the studio to gain our trust. We have to trust what they say because there is no alternative, independent news channels can't afford to shoulder the expenses required to stay competitive and attract viewership without corporate sponsorship. The stages are decorated with the logos of the most trusted news brands: CNBC, the Wall Street Journal, MSNBC, Business Week etc... big corporate media complexes owned by even bigger corporate complexes - large corporations owned by larger corporations, what's not to trust?

The CEOs we listen to and in many cases, admire, are responsible for business practices which turn communities upside down by dislocating people, nature and culture to make room for market expansions. And yet they never seem to undergo any sort of public scrutiny, the interviews they grant aren't 2-way streets, rather an opportunity for someone with a great deal of wealth and influence to tell us what they want told, little more than public relations events.

When we hear business journalists asking inane questions, we should worry and wonder why they're wasting our time and the time of one of the most highly paid people on earth. But then, the journalist understand their role and what's expected of them, they are paid to be a lapdog, not a watchdog for the CEO which is why they stick to a well rehearsed script. When we hear the CEO tell us the power of free markets to improve our lives, we need to be concerned and consider the source, they're the ones who control the free markets.

We want to believe in the merits of our society and the institutions we have placed so much trust in over the years. But those same institutions are the ones which have concentrated so much authority and wealth into the hands of the CEOs and their shareholders. We cling desperately to the belief they will help us, but the simple fact is the people being interviewed are not here to help us, they openly state their objective is to maximize earnings per share for the benefit of their shareholders. There is no conspiracy, it's really that straight forward. Their goal is to make as much money as possible, for as long as possible, using whatever tactics they can get away with.

The journalists with the good fortune to be assigned to the business elite beat, have the finesse of celebrity interviewers, the bubbly personality of prom royalty and the smarts to know exactly what their job is and more importantly, what their job is not. Their paycheck and career longevity rely on being able to attract the big names for years to come to sit with them for interviews. A successful journalist must juggle a few roles to pull off a good interview, parts court jester, reporter, adoring fan and most importantly a trusted confident for the CEO. The journalist must have the good sense to ask the questions the CEO wants asked, helping him to maintain his head of state status. What would happen if people saw their emperor had no clothes?

What's lacking in the process is the view from the other side, the business media is an ally of big business because it is a big business. Exposure isn't given to the other side of the business equation, the side forced to bear the costs associated with the free market because there is no concept of equal air time. For the people and communities bearing the costs, the decisions made in corporate board rooms half way around the world pummel them like an iron fist and force them into our version of reality.

The people who suffer the negative impacts of the business decisions made by MNCs suffer mightily. Typically they tend to be poor and illiterate and this makes them the perfect prey as their land and natural resources are stolen and then they are made to work for dollars per day. This is the real power of the free market, the power to exploit the super poor for the benefit of the super wealthy. The poor have neither the money nor acumen required to engage in the modern corporate war. They can't hire lawyers to defend their rights, they can't purchase politicians to take up their cause and they don't have a corporate jet to ferry journalists to them so they can tell their side of the story. They are on their own, it's a lonely planet without the friends money can buy.

The business media knows television interviews make the best drama, the journalist sets a friendly tone, gleefully thanking the CEO for taking time out of his busy schedule for the interview - the interview giving him access to millions of people with whom he wants to communicate, for free. It'll start with touchy feely questions to set the mood, we'll learn of a few of his favorite things, sports, hobbies, books, food, etc. If we're lucky he'll share a personal story or two from the good'ole days, before he was rich and famous and was just like us, stories about favorite mentors and tough fatherly love are perennial favorites. We'll also get to hear about his management style and his business 'heroes', once everyone feels at ease the interview will get down to business.

The mood shifts and turns to more of a fireside chat as the CEO suddenly becomes solemn and his tone changes dramatically as he describes storm clouds gathering on the horizon. He'll talk about the tough times ahead and the sacrifices that will be required by everyone - except he and his senior staff �" to get through these uncertain times. He'll tell us the future is unpredictable but, one thing is certain, to maintain the record profits and bonuses he's been getting, severe cost cutting measures are required. He's in a great position, but he wants us to believe he's got it so rough, as he must make a series of impossible choices, deciding between keeping his pay and perks or his people. As tough as they tell us the choice is, every CEO reaches the same conclusion, they choose to keep their pay and perks and jettison their people, sacrificing their employees at the alter of short term profits.

The message is almost always the same, the CEO will look the interviewer in the eye as he says these are tough times and tough times call for tough measures. He'll say we're all in this together, as he tells us about the extensive process he and his team have undertaken to determine which costs can be cut, but after it's all said and done, he's go no other option, he must cut positions to save record profits. His jet, club fees, car, lavish office space, etc. weren't considered as part of the cost cutting drive, some things are sacred. As we stand in line to hand them our money we should think about these things, by buying their products we are funding their absurdities.

Like all good actors, the CEO knows that delivery, composure and rehearsal are the key to a good performance. As he giddily counts in his head the millions he'll make by cutting costs, he must be sure to suppress the smile from his lips during the interview. He must appear somber as he speaks of the pain of layoffs, but on the inside he can't believe how easy it'll be to hit next quarters numbers with less headcount to say nothing of his bonus to match, a slam dunk! He'll practice his lines and take special care to not smile while mentioning cost cutting, he knows he won't get a 2^nd chance to make a 1^st impression.

The remarks he'll make will be punctuated with precise facial expressions, the perfect grimace and powerful pregnant pauses through tightened lips and a sincere expression. All designed to give him the authoritative credibility we expect from our leaders as they make decisions that inevitably screw us. He wants us to see the stress he doesn't feel, but knows he should, and he wants us to believe he can feel our pain, no matter how much money he's making. He'll vary the pitch and tone of his delivery to emphasize the points he needs to make, he knows he shouldn't over do the emotional display, he has to stay calm and cool, because collecting a huge paycheck requires the perfect balance.

The topic of cost cutting is tricky and requires skillful navigation because he must spin good news into bad. The costs he will cut will increase earnings per share and that's good news for him because he'll get a bigger bonus and his stock options will be worth more money. But, the cost cuts are bad news for his employees, the community and customers, because the costs have to come from somewhere. Employees will be fired and cheaper ingredients used in the products to make the cost cuts, it's this dichotomy, good news for him, bad news for everyone else, which is what makes it so important for him to put on a good show. He knows if he can maintain the image of the concerned fatherly figure, he'll be able to get away with inflicting a lot more pain. It's all about how and what he says, not his actions and this is the art of his job, getting people to focus on what he says, not on what he does.

The journalist won't delve into the details of the cost cutting measures, preferring to keep the conversation at a 'high level'. The discussion will not touch on the jobs being shifted to the 3^rd world, where the CEO's free to exploit people and pollute the environment. After he's decimated the local way of life, he'll be able to hire the people who were farmers for a 1/4^th of the price and they'll gladly work twice as many hours just to put food on their family table, a win:win for him, heaven is a place on earth.

If journalists did a proper jog of asking tough questions, as we might expect of them, then we might start to understand why CEOs engage in business practices which seem indefensible to anyone aware of them. Tough interviews with prying questions would have a different tone, they might cause us to think twice before we purchase another thing we don't need made by large corporations. If we stopped buying what the multinational corporations sell, they'd be forced to change their business practices. As it stands, the system works well for them as long as we keep buying what they sell, after all our money funds their business practices and lavish lifestyles.

The dollars at stake with big business are incomprehensible, some of their products are so well known we might mistake them for stand alone companies. For example, Tide laundry detergent and its bright orange and yellow package, can be found all over the world, we might think it is a multinational corporation, but we'd be mistaken. Braun, Crest, Duracell, Gillette, Head & Shoulder, Pampers, Pringles, Tide and countless other brands are woven together to make Proctor and Gamble (NYSE:PG) and Proctor and Gambles has an advertising budget of over $3 billion and that buys a lot of influence.

We should expect CEOs - who are paid millions of dollars to run publicly traded companies as they exploit poor people, pollute the environment and change the face of the earth - to answer tough questions. There aren't many of them and they wield tremendous wealth and influence, it only makes sense to hold them accountable in the court of public opinion, the same public which gives them their money. If their every action is for the sole purpose of increasing earnings per share, then the government we elect should help them find other ways to define success for their business before they destroy our way of life and what little is left of nature.

Tough interviews with tough questions about business practices that destroy communities and the environment would make even the most hardened CEO squirm. They'd shift back and forth grasping for answers to avoid the truth, but as it stands, they get a free pass and the interviews go off without a hitch. They are so richly rewarded and held in such high esteem by our society for their business accomplishments, they can be forgive for not realizing what they're doing is tragically wrong, another reason more informative interviews might help them.

If journalists want to keep their jobs they have to know their limits. The business media company they work for will not tolerate having the guests be made upset. Asking too many questions about their routing business practices such as child labor, bribery, worker exploitation, dodging taxes, environmental degradation, etc... would get them fired. The business media industry must keep its clients happy and besides many of these practices are tools used by all of the MNCs, including the one that owns the business media network doing the interview. But the problem is more complicated than a journalist losing their job or a show losing viewers.

CEOs are a special breed, more aggressive and cunning than the average person, they are where they are because of how many people they clawed up and over to get there. When they feel they've been mistreated, especially by a sanctimonious journalist, they don't get mad, they get even. Powerful people are not people you should cross, they're never in a hurry and they always get even, there will be blood.

Over a round of golf he'll tell friends how his feathers were ruffled by an overly ambitious journalist who harassed him just to make some sort of a point. What's more, if they aren't careful, the same could happen to them. He'll describe the feeling of being grilled in public, with neither a lawyer to hide behind, nor a scapegoat to take the fall. His friends will listen to the master salesman and laugh nervously as they quietly take note and heed the warning.

Soon enough, the journalist will realize the powerful friends the CEO has cultivated and fertilized with gifts over the years are refusing requests for interviews. You can't blame them, nobody wants to be on the hot seat. Once they, the business elite, stop parading across the stage, we lose interest in the show and change the channel to get our fix of business celebrity gossip elsewhere. We want to hear what the rich and famous say, not the middle class and mediocre. As fewer and fewer people tune in, viewership plummets and so do the ad dollars. Before the journalist can figure out what's going on, they've been blacklisted, no more CEO interviews, no more job, no more paycheck, no more mortgage payment, no more meddlesome reporter, mission accomplished.

There is one more thing that can happen for asking the wrong questions, it is the biggest threat of all, the one so powerful it doesn't have to be spoken. The CEO controls the purse strings on a global advertising budgets worth billions of dollars, as they spend more to make their logos and slogans ubiquitously known than most countries spend on health care for their children. And everyone in business knows the CEO would never allow those dollars to go to any company or person who's ever asked too many of the wrong questions.

It is important for us to realize the scope of MNCs, they've managed to accomplish what crusading armies and missionaries wouldn't dare to dream of, for fear of tempting fate, they've conquered the world. Armies marvel at the efficiency of their global operations which enable them to coat the earth with their packaging and products. Their lumber, mining, drilling, industrial food and water operations have scarred every corner of the planet, they've even conquered the oceans where their logos swirl aimlessly in pools of colorful plastic the size of Texas.

It is important of us to realize it is our money they use against us. They are destroying the social fabric of our communities, the integrity of our governments and the environment in their quest for even higher record profits, they are already rich and powerful beyond imagination, what are they looking for? Before buying their products and giving them our money we need to realize the consequences of our purchasing actions. To force them to change all we have to do is stop buying their products, it really is that easy. We need to redirect our dollars to smaller companies that are more conscious about their business practices and are more closely connected to our communities. If we do this, the change we want to see happen will happen.