LaborFest
Home Welcome 2010 Schedule About LaborFest Endorsers Contact Us
"Media's Treatment of Labor"
By Dick Meister
dickmeistersf@earthlink.netThe mainstream corporate media are notorious, of course, for their poor coverage of working people and their unions. But there's been an interesting change in their approach as a result of the severe recession that's hit the country. The media are still not what you'd call friendly to labor, for sure. But they have been devoting much more attention to labor than they have in quite a few years. They simply can't ignore such developments, for example, as the great growth in the number of unemployed workers.
It's almost as in the Great Depression with many stories about masses of unemployed workers. Unfortunately, the media just can't pass up the opportunity to blame workers and unions for the conditions that have led to mass unemployment and other economic troubles.
They've been particularly busy bashing public employees, of course, for their supposedly lavish pensions and other fringe benefits. It's outrageous, what's being written about public employees.
Consider a recent newspaper column by former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, who actually claims to be a friend of labor. Willie complained about the "incredibly generous retirement packages'' of city employees. Incredibly generous?? San Francisco City employee pensions average, before taxes, $23,000 a year or about 19 hundred dollars a month. Imagine Willie Brown having to live on that. Why, it would hardly pay for Willie's clothing bills.
.Among the public employees most heavily bashed are teachers. Everyone seems to know just what should be taught and how, and if teachers don't do it that way, if they don't follow a formula for teaching that school officials, parents and politicians assume to be the only way, a formula written in stone somewhere , if they don't follow that rigid formula, out they go, no questions asked, no bargaining on the matter, nothing.
The worst example of that has come in Washinton, D.C., where the superintendent of schools, Michele Rhee, has just fired 241 teachers for not following her rigid rules and is threatening to fire more than 700 others who aren't teaching exactly as she wants them to teach. She's more the dictator of schools than the superintendent.
The mainstream media, however, have at least helped alert many people to the serious economic problems facing the country. Now, I by no means think that's enough to make up for the media's still terrible coverage of labor overall - and especially their rotten coverage – and that's the word, rotten - especially their rotten coverage of unions. Anybody trying to understand what organized labor is really all about, certainly is not going to find out from the media.
While we're talking about the media, don't forget those letters to the editor full of misinformation - if not downright lies - about what's going on. Like the letters that blame auto workers for the bad shape of the auto industry. Believe me, as a former city editor, I can tell you that letters to the editor have a broad readership and impact. It would be very helpful to healthy public debate to have their errors corrected, or at least challenged.
That raises another issue - blaming workers for the faulty judgments of their employers. It was not the auto workers who caused their industry's problems. They build the autos. They don't design and market autos. Their bosses do, and their bosses screwed up.
The media's priorities are often messed up. Take the explosion of the oil rig, Deepwater Horizon, in the Gulf of Mexico. The media have shown lots and lots of concern for the explosion's effect on the environment, reporting daily and in great detail on the progress in cleaning up the oil spill, as they should. But what of the crew members who died or were seriously injured?
A few media outlets actually talked to some of the survivors - CNN, for instance, and the Washington Post. Yet overall, the 11 men who were killed are rarely mentioned and the condition of the 17 who were injured is never mentioned. How seriously were they injured? How are they healing? The media seem more concerned with the condition of the environment that with the condition of people.
Before I go on, though, let me remind you of how media labor coverage has changed over the years. The coverage certainly was never what you'd call sympathetic or friendly to labor, and was often just the opposite. At times it was almost non-existent. But with the rise of industrial unions in the 1920s and thirties, the media had to began paying close attention to labor, if only to attack unions and what they were doing.
Also, remember, there was lots of exciting and dramatic stuff to cover in those days of intense union activity - the drives of unions for legal recognition in the 1930s and forties, the great labor-management conflicts after World War II and up to the 1970s. Lots of drama. Lots of conflict. Lots of strikes. Lots of Stuff that helped sell lots of newspapers. So most daily newspapers had at least one full-time labor reporter.
The reporters and their newspapers were not necessarily labor-friendly, but at least they conveyed to the general public something of what working people were saying, including their pro-union talk , as well as their pro-union actions.
However, labor coverage began shrinking steadily with the steady decline in the percentage of workers who belong to unions since those exciting days. But there were nevertheless some major exceptions to the media's general indifference to labor. The early struggles of the United Farm Workers union, for instance, were covered thoroughly, thanks to the farmworkers' effective use of tools such as the boycott to gain widespread public support – and widespread media attention. The UFW engaged in dramatic, easily covered, attention-grabbing activities, under the leadership of an extraordinarily charismatic figure, Cesar Chavez. How could the media resist, whatever their prejudices?
But getting back to today. The need for labor specialists in the media is probably greater than it ever was. Labor has become a subject no less complex than politics, education or any of the other subjects that get specialized media treatment. That, of course, includes business, which gets plenty of specialized reporting and, of course, their own section in most papers.
And there are still some quite dramatic stories to be told of workers in addition to farmworkers who are fighting for the simple right of union recognition.
It should be more than enough, anyway, that most people work for a living. And, in fact, define themselves by their jobs. They obviously would be interested in -- and obviously need - - expert information about that most important aspect of their lives.
It's workers, furthermore, who make our society go. They're the people who do the actual work of society rather than those who finance and direct the work. What workers do, and under what conditions they do it, should be a prime concern of the media.
But despite all that. Despite the interest. Despite the need, the general public gets little that's of any real value about working people - - and much that's prejudicial to their collective action.
Consider the coverage of strikes, just about the only union activities covered at any length by most mainstream media. To them, labor is news only when labor is doing something that's highly visible and easily explained in the simplistic, violent and melodramatic terms of labor versus management, like a war or football game.
As I noted, the media love strikes. You know, conflict. One group against another. Angry charges and counter-charges. As I said, that's what sells newspapers.
But what about the issues? Well, they're normally explained, if they're explained at all , way down in strike stories, and usually cursorily. What mainly counts to the media is how a strike affects the public – how it inconveniences the public. Most strikes invariably inconvenience the public to som degree.
A strike breaks out, and sure enough, reporters run around breathlessly with notebooks and microphones in hand, take some quick photos and video footage of pickets marching around and talk to bunches of people on the street about how terribly inconvenienced they are. "Boy, I was late to work today cause the strike has kept the buses from running." You know, that sort of thing.
Lacking a thorough explanation of why strikers took the drastic action of walking off the job and little mention of the financial sacrifices that entails, the general public – including other workers – has little basis on which to decide whether to support particular strikers.
People often know only of the trouble strikers may have caused others and so they oppose the strikers – particularly if the strikers are public employees, whose strikes are almost invariably attacked by media editorialists as illegal, and worse.
The management actions that trigger strikes --- frequently the poor treatment of workers – typically are only barely reported. It's unions that are cited as the cause. It's unions, after all, that call strikes. It's unions that are portrayed as aggressors – often as unreasonable aggressors who are striking for purely greedy reasons. It's unions that keep people from riding buses.
And I'm sure you know that in the media, management makes "offers" to strikers, but strikers make "demands" to management. That their unions are led by "bosses," management led by "executives."
Newspapers and the broadcast and online media, at any rate, are not much interested in the issues and behind-the-scenes activities that would adequately explain organized labor to the general public. They generally don't want talk and thoughtful analysis of labor issues. They want action. The simpler and more dramatic their coverage, the better.
Contract negotiations? Boring and too complicated. The very concept of collective bargaining seems to escape the media's understanding – and thus escapes the understanding of most people, it seems.
The media aren't much interested, either, in such matters as the serious on-the-job hazards faced by many workers, and the poor enforcement of the safety laws that are designed to protect them. Six-thousand workers are killed on the job every year, but the media play slight attention to that.
The list of other important labor issues neglected by the media is a very long one.
The mainstream media, for example, regularly tell readers that union membership is shrinking, But rarely – if ever – do they report that a main reason for that is failure of the government to adequately enforce the laws that supposedly guarantee workers the right to unionize without employer interference. Reporting on the proposed Employee Free Choice Act has touched on that , but not to any great depth.
It's also rare for the media to report the fact that unionized workers, whatever
the industry, are much better compensated and otherwise better treated than non-union workers in the same jobs. If people thought about that , if they thought, Hey, they might wonder, if you get higher pay and better benefits if you join a union, why don’t workers join unions, if they get better pay and benefits as union members?
If they thought about those obvious attractions of union membership, they might conclude that employers are obviously blocking workers from unionizing. The media are at least partly responsible themselves for declining union membership, since they provide little information on those advantages of membership, little information that would spark interest by non-union workers, particularly the hyoung low understanding of and interest in unions by many people, particularly the young. Just about the only thing many of them know about unions comes from the mainstream media's sketchy and often negative reports.
The media's coverage of labor's political activities is no better than their coverage of labor's economic activities, probably even worse. To describe it as highly biased and ludicrously inaccurate would not be an overstatement. You know, that business of labeling organized labor as "Big Labor," the presumed equivalent of "Big Business."
Thus the AFL-CIO is treated as the equal of the hugely wealthy corporate entities that dominate political and economic life. And although organized labor is an advocate for all working people, for those, that is, who make up the vast bulk of the population, union and non-union members alike, labor is described as a "special interest."
Rarely is there mention of labor's political efforts at the local, state and national level in behalf of all working-class Americans. Rarely are readers told of labor's positions on the major issues of the day. Rarely are the views of union leaders and the rank-and-file sought or reported.
Lots of interviews of corporate executives on TV , but as for the views of labor leaders, forget it. There's no interest in the mainstream media in either their views or those of union rank-and-filers.
There's one major exception, however. Labor's views on trade are widely reported – and usually depicted as reactionary attempts to halt growth of the global economy that the media and their corporate, labor exploiting friends so dearly love.
The media also somehow seem unaware that unions are democratic institutions, that those union "bosses" are elected. That's especially evident in the reporting of union contributions to political campaigns. Newspapers often cite complaints that a union contributed funds to a candidate or campaign without a vote of the membership, but neglect to report that the contributions were made by elected union representatives whose duties include taking such political actions on behalf of the union's members. That's what they're elected to do.
But though the mainstream media make a big thing about the supposed undemocratic nature of certain unions, if not all of them, they somehow never mention the not quite democratic nature of the corporations that unions must battle.
Most newspapers now put almost all of whatever labor stories they do cover on their business pages, a very hostile environment, The stories there naturally are read by people with business interests, and naturally are slanted in that direction. Most of the readers undoubtedly look on the stories as information about what their labor adversaries are up to. And those business section supplements full of advice to white-collar workers seeking better working conditions – never are they advised to organize.
Oh, and TV coverage of labor – forget it, except for highly visible events like strikes. On TV,you'll get no detailed information – if any information at all – about labor issues or about unions in general, not even from the TV pundits who babble about almost everything else. Same thing for commercial radio. And the same thing for the public television and radio stations that claim to be superior to commercial stations.
For instance, consider the highly touted PBS News Hour. Almost never has there been a union representative on the program, even when a particular story directly involves labor. Pundits who discuss their view of labor issues and actions are most welcome. So are corporate executives, but no union leaders, please.
The online coverage of labor is every bit as sparse and bad as TV coverage.
So, why is labor coverage so bad?
The main reason, of course, is simply that media outlets are owned by large corporations. And large corporations -- surprise! – are not fond of unions. They cut into profits, and that's what the corporations are all about – making as much profit as possible, even if that comes at the expense of their employees.
There's also this in regard to newspapers: Newspaper advertisers, and thus newspapers, are increasingly seeking readers in the relatively affluent suburbs outside the city centers where unions and union supporters are concentrated. There's far less interest in labor – if not outright opposition – among many of those in the suburbs with relatively high incomes who newspapers and their advertisers covet.
Nor are reporters and editors necessarily friends of labor, although many are union members and in fact owe their standing in the middle and upper middle class to the success of their union.
In the days when labor was covered extensively, most reporters and editors were as poor and as poorly treated as the working people they covered. But today, they're
well paid, generally well treated and at the top of the newspaper pecking order, where they tend to identify with management.
Certainly there are non-mainstream media that do cover labor thoroughly – union newspapers and websites, for example, and quite a few other websites such as mine, of course, and among others, Labornet, Truthout, and Znet., for example. Alternative newspapers such as the San Francisco Bay Guardian and liberal magazines such as The Nation and the New Republic do a good job of covering labor, but their coverage is not --- and can't be -- on the detailed day-to-day basis that's badly needed.
The Detroit-based monthly, Labor Notes, does a particularly good job of covering labor, as does the Communist Party's People 's Weekly World.
The labor-friendly non-mainstream media perform the essential task of informing and unifying union supporters. But much more is needed. Labor must make its case to the general public if it's to win broad public support. And it can do that only through the mainstream media – as unfriendly as they often are.
Unions themselves bear some of the blame for the mainstream media's poor labor coverage. It's understandable that many unions view the mainstream media as enemies and refuse to share information with them. But unions have no choice except to at least try to cultivate particular reporters who might be sympathetic .
Yes, unions should certainly complain about poor coverage, but should also press as hard and as skillfully as they can for better coverage, however high the odds are against them.
Unions should not run from the corporate media, but reach out to explain their case clearly and forcefully, Look at it this way: Unions should treat the media as they treat unfriendly employers whose at least grudging cooperation they gain through skillful negotiations or, as a last resort, through public protests, demonstrations and picketing.
News by definition, is the unusual. And strikes, whatever some people may think, are indeed unusual and so they're usually extensively covered. Same thing for unusual, though peacefully reached contract settlements. Some unions, though, don't recognize that there's little media interest in peaceful negotiations … on the signing of a labor contract that offers more of the same thing … on the re-election of union officers who have been re-elected unopposed for years. To not report such matters in the mainstream media is not to be anti-union, and unions should clearly understand that.
The mainstream media do, of course, report unusual, although peacefully reached contract settlements, and hotly contested union elections and many other labor matters having nothing to do with dramatic, highly visible actions such as strikes.
But the commonplace day-to-day events of labor are not generally reported, And that's not a sign of media bias. Much of unions' day-to-day matters are of interest primarily to those who already know about them, and of importance only to them – that is, to those inside the labor movement.
Mobilizing public opinion in support of better labor coverage would help immensely. Whatever else they are, the people who own and operate the mainstream media are business people. They are selling goods and services. And they'll sell just about anything the public is willing to buy, or wants to buy. For even if better labor coverage gave aid and comfort to the media corporations' labor enemies, it would increase the corporations' profits, And that's their number one priority.
The best hope for decent media coverage of labor lies in the growth of unions. The decline in union membership has made unions seem less important and thus less newsworthy to mainstream media, quite apart from the media's natural anti-unionism.
But though the mainstream media surely can be blamed for part of the decline in union membership, unions themselves must take some of the blame. They've seriously neglected organizing over the past few decades. Unions, for instance, have been slow to organize among the great masses of immigrant workers who keep coming into the country in substantial numbers.
Think of it: Organizing immigrants could result in growth as great or even greater than in unions' boom days of the 1930s and their formative years at the turn of the 20th century, when they also organized masses of immigrants.
The mainstream media, remember, don't necessarily cover what's important, be it labor or anything else –- unless it also happens to be popular with those who advertisers are aiming at. Or if it involves the powerful and influential. That's how maximum media profits are made.
If the number andf percentage of workers in union members begins growing again, if unions become big again, you can be sure they will again get big mainstream media coverage. Maybe even fair media coverage, Who knows? Miracles do happen.