Biden Administration Poised To Give Comcast Lobbyist Canadian Ambassador Spot

from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept

While the Biden administration still hasn't fully staffed the gridlocked FCC, it does appear to be ready to reward a top Comcast lobbyist and key Biden fundraising ally with a cushy new post.

According to the Washington Post, the Biden administration appears poised to "probably" give top Comcast lobbyist David Cohen the position of Canadian Ambassador, with a planned announcement likely coming in May:

"David Cohen, a Comcast executive who hosted Biden’s first official 2020 presidential fundraising event, probably will be nominated as U.S. ambassador to Canada."

Cohen is, if you're unfamiliar, one of the architects of Comcast's relentless monopolistic domination of US telecom, steering the company through numerous power consolidating mergers while assuring regulators that Comcast's growing power was nothing to be concerned about. Granted time showcased it was very much something to be concerned about, as Comcast's steadily growing monopoly over broadband (especially at faster speeds) is directly responsible for soaring US broadband prices, spotty coverage, and historically terrible customer service courtesy of steadily-eroding competition.

Cohen was dubbed a "wonk rock star" by the Washington Post back in 2012 for selling regulators on the 2011 Comcast NBC Universal merger. This was largely done using Internet Essentials, a program that promises discounted broadband access to low-income families. The plan was criticized heavily at first for being regulator window dressing that was intentionally difficult to qualify for while offering substandard speeds, something only fixed by Comcast after annoyed parents in Philadelphia protested in the streets (protestors who believe the program doesn't do enough to offset Comcast's overall harm were still protesting last year).

Internet Essentials was extremely helpful as a way to advertise Comcast's boundless altruism, despite the fact Comcast's monopolization and mergermania was heavily responsible for unaffordable US internet access in the first place. As the program has been launched and relaunched a thousand times over, it has provided Comcast with a bottomless well of promotional material featuring Cohen posing over the desks of beaming children. Of course the program provided something else as well: lobbying cover for access to federal, state, and local lawmakers.

Under feeble US lobbying laws, if an employee spends more than 20% of their time lobbying in DC, they have to register with the government as a lobbyist, detail their travel with lawmakers, and more fully outline their contributions to politicians and foundations. So to get around these restrictions, many companies simply call their lobbyists and policy wonks...something else. In Comcast's case, Cohen spent much of his time as the company's "Chief Diversity Officer." Around 2019 Comcast thankfully hired somebody genuinely diverse to be Chief Diversity Officer, and Cohen's role shifted to one of "counselor and adviser." Comcast has historically gotten mad at me for calling Cohen a lobbyist, despite the fact that lobbying has always clearly made up a huge percentage of his work.

Again, the news of Cohen's reward comes despite the fact the Biden team still hasn't appointed a third Democratic Commissioner (and possible permanent boss) at the FCC, leaving it mired in partisan gridlock after the rushed appointment of Trump ally Nathan Simington. Hopefully the FCC appointment comes soon, given that rewarding telecom lobbyists before you've gotten around to staffing your top telecom regulator probably won't be a great look for an administration hoping to get a vague but promising broadband agenda off the ground.

Filed Under: ambassadors, canada, david cohen, diversity, joe biden, lobbyists
Companies: comcast

Amazon Pays Employees To Chirp Happily On Twitter About Wonderful Working Conditions

from the disinformation-nation dept

For several years now, there have been a parade of articles examining the "churn and burn" culture at Amazon. For example a 2015 New York Times piece profiled the "bruising" culture at the company while noting that employees weeping at their desk was not an uncommon sight. And while the profile was contested by some employees at the company, a substantial number of different reports have also highlighted the poor working conditions in Amazon distribution warehouses, including employees having to pee in garbage cans for fear of missing targets by going to a proper restroom.

Hoping to correct the "public perception" of poor working conditions at the company's warehouses, Amazon executives have crafted a new "solution" to the problem. They've started paying some warehouse employees to create Twitter accounts and speak positively of not only their working experiences, but CEO Jeff Bezos. Under the tags of "Amazon FC Ambassadors," these employees are broadly encouraged to respond to any criticism of Amazon with positivity and, apparently, copious use of emojis as they proudly insist they can pee any time they'd like:

Amazon is a little bit dodgy in comments to The Guardian when it comes to admitting that these employees are being paid extra to chirp happily about their wonderful working experiences at Amazon:

"An Amazon spokesman, Ty Rogers, assured the Guardian via email that these ambassadors were real employees who work in fulfillment centers, not Twitter bots. He declined to answer questions about how the accounts were created or if employees were compensated for defending the company on social media.

“FC ambassadors are employees who understand what it’s actually like to work in our FCs,” says Rogers. “The most important thing is that they’ve been here long enough to honestly share the facts based on personal experience. It’s important that we do a good job of educating people about the actual environment inside our fulfillment centers, and the FC ambassador program is a big part of that, along with the FC tours we provide."

The employees are similarly cagey about whether they're being paid extra to speak positively about the company on Twitter:

"Asked specifically about whether they were paid extra for their Twitter service, Leo, from Jacksonville, replied: “this is just another role that I have. Right now I’m tweeting from work."

In other words, yes, your employer is paying you extra to say nice things about it. You'd hope that actual improvements to working conditions have accompanied Amazon's apparent belief that this campaign of mandatory enthusiasm was a good idea.

Filed Under: ambassadors, astroturf, social media, warehouses, working conditions
Companies: amazon

CIA Torture Report Reveals That State Department Officials Knew About Torture; Were Told Not To Tell Their Bosses

from the loose-lips-stop-war-crimes dept

We continue to wait and wait for the White House to finish pouring black ink all over the Senate's torture report, before releasing the (heavily redacted) 480-page executive summary that the Senate agreed to declassify months ago. However, every few weeks it seems that more details from the report leak out to the press anyway. The latest is that officials at the State Department were well aware of the ongoing CIA torture efforts, but were instructed not to tell their superiors, such that it's likely that the top officials, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, may have been kept in the dark, while others at the State Department knew of the (highly questionable) CIA actions.

A Senate report on the CIA's interrogation and detention practices after the 9/11 attacks concludes that the agency initially kept the secretary of state and some U.S. ambassadors in the dark about harsh techniques and secret prisons, according to a document circulating among White House staff.

The still-classified report also says some ambassadors who were informed about interrogations of al-Qaida detainees at so-called black sites in their countries were instructed not to tell their superiors at the State Department, the document says.

Powell was eventually told about the program, but not until it was well underway apparently. And, of course, the CIA says that this was all perfectly normal:

The former CIA official said it would be standard practice for ambassadors informed about a covert operation to be instructed not to share it with others who did not have a "need to know," as determined by the National Security Agency. Ambassadors in countries in which the CIA set up black sites to interrogate prisoners were usually told about it, said the official....

The other interesting tidbit is that this report came from leaked "talking points" at the State Department, as they prepare for the release of the report. As we noted recently, the State Department had been making some noises about how angry this report would make lots of people -- but it appears that the latest strategy is for the State Department to "embrace" the findings and pull a "that was then, this is now" card:

The State Department wants to embrace the conclusions of the Senate report and blast the CIA's past practices, according to the document.

"This report tells a story of which no American is proud," the document says in a section entitled "Topline Messages (as proposed by State)."

"But it is also part of another story of which we can be proud," the document adds. "America's democratic system worked just as it was designed to work in bringing an end to actions inconsistent with our democratic values."

Frankly, this is probably the most sensible strategy -- and one many people have been advocating for. Everyone knows the report is damning. The best way to deal with it is to come clean, admit how wrong things were, and be much more transparent. There are, of course, a few problems with this plan, though. First, the US has never done anything to actually punish those who were responsible for the program. In fact, the only person in jail for his association with the program is the guy who blew the whistle on it. Second, the intelligence community would have to become a hell of a lot more transparent. While it has actually become marginally more transparent thanks to Ed Snowden, the intelligence community has a long way to go to build back up trust. Releasing this report is the right thing to do. But actually getting people to trust the US intelligence community again is going to take a lot more work.

Filed Under: ambassadors, cia, colin powell, state department, torture, torture report

Administration's Shortlist For Ambassador Appointments Includes Four Hollywood Donors

from the how-refreshing!-[eyerolls-and-sarcasm-tags-galore] dept

It's time for Obama to appoint a few ambassadors and the short list appears to be stuffed with exactly the sort of people that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce would wholeheartedly approve. The CoC's desire to rewrite other nations' IP laws through slanted "free trade agreements" or the odious TPP would likely gain a few allies willing to soften up the opposition before the main push.

The Hollywood Reporter has taken a look at Obama's donor list and named a few loyalists who might be rewarded for their election-run largesse with an ambassadorial appointment. And, no surprise, many of the names have close ties with Hollywood.

Among the Barack Obama loyalists under consideration for ambassadorial appointments are Los Angeles-based White House decorator Michael Smith, 47; Hollywood philanthropist and television producer Colleen Bell, 45; industry money manager John Emerson, 57; and Tennis Channel chief Ken Solomon, 49. And the Westside L.A. dinner-party circuit has started buzzing with conversations about who else might be in the mix this time around.

According to sources, many of the candidates were among 100 guests invited to the White House in early December for an East Room dinner at which Obama and the first lady thanked longtime fundraisers and Democratic activists for their support. Among the Hollywood-connected contingent at the event were Emerson; Solomon; Wintour; Smith and his partner, HBO executive James Costos; Bell and her husband, soap opera producer Bradley Bell; political and philanthropic consultant Noah Mamet; Harvey Weinstein; and Hollywood political consultant Andy Spahn.

In addition to the title (which appointees get to hold onto for life), there's a bit of prestige and a salary of $150,000-180,000 attached to the job. In order to repay an industry for its nearly unwavering support, the administration may choose a few from its rank, both as a thank-you gesture and to ensure the "proper" mindset when approaching other countries about their "weak" IP laws.

This, of course, is part of the "revolving door" process. If an appointee serves well in this position, it gets them a foot in the political door, which could lead to a political career... which would then lead to a post-career chairperson position or the like with the entertainment industry... which could lead to a lobbying position... and so on. The entertainment industries know this political game well, and Hollywood has been more active than most in the process, especially over the past several years.

Some will claim that these appointments have nothing to do with rewarding donors, like this unnamed person:

According to an administration insider: "There is no single thing that qualifies you to be an ambassador, but they have one thing in common: They have all earned the trust and respect of the president. He isn't going to choose someone just because they've raised $500,000. He has to know them."

Of course, it's not all about the money. It's also about the industry itself. The entertainment industry has been a strong supporter of the Obama administration and has not been very shy about expressing its appreciation for the government's willingness to cater to its every need. It also hasn't held back when it thinks it has been wronged, as MPAA CEO Chris Dodd's post-SOPA-failure threat to withhold bribes contributions if the administration failed to hold up its end of the bargain.

So, if these candidates end up with ambassadorships, the posts will lay somewhere between thank you cards and olive branches, letting the entertainment industry know that the administration still wants its money support, and that it's willing to send the industry's people out to win hearts and minds abroad.

Filed Under: ambassadors, copyright, hollywood, politics