The cost-benifit analysis

I worked as an engineer for several multinational corporations for over 30 years. Virtually nothing was done without doing a cost-benefit analysis to determine if it was going to be a plus or a minus on the bottom line. It was not as simple as it might seem. An example is it was not always easy to calculate such things as the impact of positive or negative PR. I thought about this today when I read about Chris Matthews' uncharacteristic comments about the Bush/Cheney regime.

The networks, FOX, NBC, CNN etc are owned and controlled by large American corporations which control what we see and hear. Matthews for the most part has been a good corporate/Bush administration shill beginning with his attacks on Bill Clinton prior to Bush's selection. Would Matthews for all intents and purposes call Bush and Cheney liars without permission from the corporate masters? Unlikely I think. This is just the latest example of the corporate media challenging the Bush administration. You have even seen some of it on FOX. I wouldn't expect a shift to be sudden. That would an admission that the captive talking heads had been wrong in the first place. The shift would be slow.

This raises the question; have the corporate powers run a new cost-benefit analysis on George W. Bush and company and found them to be a liability rather than an asset?

Firedoglake has another clue. And once again it involves Chris Matthews.

Tony Perkins, president of the theocratic Family Research Council, said some things on Hardball last night sure to make Unka Karl’s special muscles tighten. I’m giving you my own transcription from the video available at Crooks and Liars, because the official MSNBC transcript omits an interesting slip of the tongue (highlighted in italics):

We went over to relieve them of their oppression, set up another administration, another regime, (and) it appears now that (it) is just as hostile to religious freedoms, or just as hostile to human rights. We bear responsibility for that, and what is concerning, Chris, about this is that their constitution, in the wording of giving deference to Sharia law, is very similar to what is in the Iraqi constitution, and. . .

Let me be clear: I served in the Marine Corps. I reenlisted for the first Gulf War, but I would say that the resolve of the American people will not long stand if they know that they are giving their sons and dollars, their sons and dollars (sic)… daughters to die for just changing the names of regimes.

[......]

Before I wrap up, let’s take a quick look at Perkins’ Freudian slip in my transcription above. People like Perkins and Dobson are political operatives who lead their christian theocratic orc hordes, but they are just as much aligned with the big corporate robber barons who form the other key part of the corrupt Republican establishment. That’s why Perkins slipped and said "sons and dollars" instead of "sons and daughters." Helpfully, MSNBC omitted this slip from its official transcript. MSNBC is, after all, an important pillar in the conservative establishment media.

There may be a couple of things in play here. One is the corporate issue discussed above but there are also indications that the Christian wingnuts are having doubts about Bush and continued support by the likes of Tony Perkins and James Dobson threatens their hold on power as well.

Just an observation but it will be interesting to see if the shift in corporate media continues.