Normally we ignore private family squabbles. Why is the story of that dysfunctional Rogers family front page news?
The media are interested for a variety of reasons. One is that they hold people like the Rogers’ family in awe. To the mainstream media, they are achievers, much like the owners of the corporations which own the media. To them, then, the public row between Edward Rogers and his mother and siblings is disappointing, even embarrassing. People they consciously put on a pedestal are behaving badly, letting the side, that is, the dominant class’s side, down. They are behaving as if they were just ordinary, that is, working class, folk.
If that is the source of their agitation, why should anyone else care? Because it matters: the public squabble reveals many of the dark sides of corporate capitalism.
It is about money, a huge amount of money. It is about the protection of people who did nothing to deserve or earn that money and who are allowed to enjoy its many privileges. They inherited it, much as aristocrats inherited their wealth from their ancestors during the primitive feudal system that preceded capitalism. They did not have to compete for it; they did not have to put their talents and vigour to use. The same story shows how they put their inherited cultural, vast sporting interest and communication assets to use to promote relentless and soul-destroying competition for the working class. This enables capitalists everywhere to better exploit fragmented sectors of the non-wealth owning class. The story also reveals how a legal vehicle, the for-profit corporation, is used by the owners of the means of production, to avoid any personal responsibility for all the wrongful conduct engaged in by their corporations as they chase profits for those few owners of the means of production. It shows how the real owners are able to wield power over other, lesser, capitalists by establishing feudal-like powers given to them by law. It makes it as plain as it can be that they enjoy the benefits of a legally created vehicle which is profoundly anti-democratic. One dollar/one vote is the rule by which they live at the same time as everyone else is asked to live by a democratic principle which proclaims that every person’s vote counts equally. The corporation is a malignant tumour inside the body politic. This is made even more obvious as the story shows how these feudal/corporate beings, the feuding Rogers, have been able to incorporate powerful political figures into the web of their corporate pursuits, making it easy to see how cheaply politicians can be bought and made to serve the dominant class. In this case, the co-optation of the mayor of Toronto, a city which does an enormous amount of business with the Rogers corporate outfit, makes the story more titillating from a media perspective and more telling from a progressive activists’ vantage point.
In short, the media fuss, despite its personality and pop psychology coverage, is useful. It is a platform for progressive people to ask serious questions about the ways in which capitalism retains its power and, all too often, wins the battle for the hearts and minds of the people.
For an elaboration of the story and more nuanced analysis, see The Rogers feud: glimpses of feudalism within capitalism.