About that for profit scam . . .

I recently argued that Senator Elizabeth Warren's refusal to participate in a Fox News Town Hall because she did not want to support the network's "hate for profit scam" was understandable, though I wondered why she was not as bothered by the for profit scam that is at the root of all other corporate networks' coverage of the Democratic presidential primary season. As I put it: a for-profit scam is only marginally less offensive than a hate-for-profit scam, and it's still a scam. 

Last night was the first "debate" between contenders for the 2020 Democratic nomination. Patience Haggin and Nat Ives in the Wall Street Journal give us a sense of how much MSNBC stands to cash-in from these events: 

Advertisers were asked to pay up to $100,000 for 30-second spots on MSNBC during the Democratic presidential primary debates this week, according to people familiar with the matter, signaling that the network anticipates high viewer interest for its kickoff to the 2020 campaign season.

The figure represents a significant premium from the network’s usual sticker prices, according to the people. The actual purchase price wasn’t clear and could be lower, depending on a host of factors . . . NBCUniversal has been pitching marketers on research it says shows high engagement among viewers of political coverage, including during ad breaks.

The "historically diverse" group of moderators for the debate certainly understand profit: 

*Jose Diaz-Balart, the "Brian Williams of Telemundo," has a net worth of $5 million. 
*Savannah Guthrie, who took over as co-anchor on the Today Show after the network execs threw Ann Curry under the bus, has a net worth of $20 million and makes $8 million per year. 
*Lester Holt, who received mixed reviews for his 2016 moderation of a Trump/Clinton debate, has a net worth of $12 million and makes $4 million per year. 
*Rachel Maddow, an extremely competent journalist who unfortunately treated the Trump/Russia story in a manner that was like a center-left version of Glenn Beck, has a net worth of $20 million and makes $7 million per year. 
*Chuck Todd, who literally spoke more than 7 of the candidates in the first debate, has a net worth of $2 million. 
(Note: These folks are paupers compared to Fox's Sean Hannity, who has a net worth of $220 million and annual salary of $40 million.) 

The average journalist in the USA makes about $40,000 per year. My suggestion would be to allow at least one local journalist on the stage with MSNBC's millionaire celebs so as to increase the possibility that a voice of real people has a chance to be represented on the stage. 

Are we better off with these debates than without them? All things considered, probably yes. But let's not kid ourselves about the manner in which commercialism controls the structure of such events and severely limits their value in serving representative democracy in a truly meaningful way.