A woman ascends to take the fall—the story of Mary Barra
Monday, October 27, 2014 at 2:40 pm — admin
The dolts at the NYTimes seem almost universally to have no notion of what is actually happening on any given day--the only given for the Times is the fact they are driven almost wholly by their desire to frame the news they present in a light favorable to Democrats in general, and Obama in particular. (Yes, today we're again told how wonderful ObamaCaid is when it is SO NOT.) To examine the Times' cluelessness, take this case study: A woman is named CEO of General Motors. Hmm, that’s something that has NEVER happened, not only at GM, but at any major auto company, as the Times points out. Why Now, would've been a good question for any cub reporter.
But the Times did no digging. No reporting. Only cheerleading, despite the fact the first lady CEO of GM is gettn' half the pay AND the position under the new female CEO is stripped of power.
The NYTimes in their A1 story on Dec. 11, 2013 subheads Ms. Barra as a “consensus builder who brought order to chaos.” Hmm. One smart journo might say: what’s up? A girl? Really. Wonder why now?—now being the imperative question. Yet.... the NYTimes never wonders why the board of GM “chose her unanimously”? As the Times points out, Barra had worked at GM for 33 years, but the man she replaced, (Dan Akerson) was a “fledgling outside director of [GM] with no automotive experience when he took the reins of GM in 2010.” (Recall that GM went bankrupt in 2009, and then became for all intents and purposes "Government Motors" in a bailout.)
To about any reporter worth their salt (or editor on the story) the question of timing would seem paramount. But the Times does not wonder. First woman to lead major US company. Hmmm.
As we all know, the best way for women to succeed is to stay put at one company for a shitload of years and wait….until what?...for what. The NYTimes said in 2013, that her appointment meant “that the stodgy corporate culture at GM has changed forever.” Hmm, well, I guess no one at the Times does anything more than goosefeed their reader canned quotes, as they did in that article with Barra quoted, giving duckfood about “the next chapter” in GM’s history, ha…post the bankruptcy chapter one might assume. And then this wholly awful quote from GM’s prior leader that “Mary was picked for her talent, not her gender.” The Times dutifully reported this latter quote was from a conference call with reporters.
But it was indeed her gender that put her in the GM hot seat as the company announced major recalls just two months after putting Ms. Barra CEO hot seat.
"After all, something went wrong with our process in this instance and terrible things happened," she said. "As a member of the GM family and as a mom with a family of my own, this really hits home for me." ~Mary Barra
And later in 2014, after another round of recalls here’s how Bloomberg summarized the Mary Barra appointment:
So, all in all, given the CEO Boyz Club, the Times might be more curious when a woman is spat up to CEO, cause Bozy don’t much like it when Girz Rule.
And the Turkey’s ASS that is Matt Lauer asked Ms. Barra if she could be both a good CEO and good Mommy. Seriously. He did that. Did Lauer ever ask if Barky Ebola Obama could be both a good POTUS and a Dad? But Matt did do the right thing when he asked:
Matt was on target with this question and those who dismiss it dismiss the problem women face as CEO: they are often overlooked when qualifications for the job are the main concern, and too often considered for top dog spots based on timing or perception softening. Mary Barra should have come clean and admitted her gender was absolutely a factor in her appointment and that she was expected to play it up….which she did…to help soften the company’s image during a very tough time.
And sadly, remember the fella who had Barra’s job before her? Yeah, Akerson, the guy who no prior auto experience. He made double what they pay Barra. Yeah, you got it: double. Now to those who say: well, that poor bloke Akerson made double because as CEO and Chairman of the Board he had double the power, while Barra has half the power. Hmmm…all the better to control you with my dear.
This title should have been GM’s female ceo gets half the pay as male predecessor, with CEO’s power slashed.
In announcing her promotion, Akerson said while GM might get some benefit from promoting a woman, "that’s not why she was chosen. She was chosen for her qualifications.” But his sincerity is put in question by the decision to divide his job responsibilities rather than pass them all off to her.