Features » April 20, 2005

Union Stations

By David Moberg

Add up the audience for all of the progressive independent press: national magazines, local newsweeklies, liberal blogs, Pacifica radio stations. It probably isn’t more than a few million households.

But add other anti-corporate alternatives—the magazines and newspapers produced by American labor unions—and the audience soars by an estimated eight million households. Yet, the labor press wields little clout, even with union members. Could this sleeping giant, if awakened, play a role in the revival of labor unions and progressive politics?

In the debate over what new directions the union movement might take, the labor press has received little attention. That reflects its sorry state. Labor unions once owned popular radio stations and produced thousands of publications. There were also many independent, often left-wing publications with a significant working-class readership. Some publications still do good work, and there are fledgling labor-backed ventures on local cable and radio, such as the daily shows produced by Worker Independent News. Unions have expanded Internet activity and given growing support to media reform. But compared to a decade ago, there are fewer publications, appearing less frequently, and often of declining quality.

Labor members and union staffers have plenty of ideas about what kind of media labor could create—a national online daily newspaper, a cable channel, a weekly trade journal. Or how it could improve media operations—be more professional, report controversy and debate, give editors more independence. But the first question is simply: Why bother?

Matt Witt, director of the American Labor Education Center and previously communications director at the Mineworkers, the Teamsters and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), conducted focus groups while at SEIU. “The huge majority of people receiving a union publication are not looking at it, in the sense of not looking at it—period,” says Witt. However, they do read short leaflets distributed at their work sites, where, Witt argues, people learn through action more than through reading. Other surveys, however, indicate the situation is not so bleak, but creating audience interest is a huge hurdle for any new proposal.

The challenge is not just finding money to mount massive new television programming or publications, says Witt, but also developing skill in delivering a populist message. Labor press advocates like Martin Fishgold, a local union newspaper editor and president of the International Labor Communications Association, argue that labor publications would be more avidly read if they were livelier, filled with professional reporting and controversy, and edited by a staff with independence from union officers’ dictates. Labor pursues only a public relations strategy, not a democratic media strategy, he says. Fishgold wants the AFL-CIO to immediately develop national radio and cable TV shows and a weekly publication, and then, within two to five years, create a radio and cable network. He advocates that local labor federations produce mass-circulation newspapers, much like free alternative weeklies.

But with both organizing and politics demanding more money, funding for such ambitious outreach ventures is unlikely. And almost no union leaders support making union editors unaccountable to officers, who legitimately see labor publications as a means to deliver the messages they consider most important. But those union presidents, if they wanted, could decide that a more freewheeling labor press, featuring voices of members as well as the words of elected officials, best delivers a crucial message—that the union belongs to its members.

If a labor press is to exist, its potential audiences include union members, staff and activists, non-union workers, and potential allies and supporters. No one strategy reaches all audiences, or does all jobs well. Leaflets may mobilize workers for campaigns, but they’re not as good for providing activists with broader information about the labor movement or developing the intellectual foundations of a new movement, as the right wing has done over decades.

Within likely financial limits, labor could try—while closely measuring effectiveness—several experiments. For example, unions could create some open and democratic local union newspapers, labor-backed alternative weeklies in several cities, more radio programming and internet publications and a weekly “trade journal” for activists and staff, similar to what exists for professionals in fields like computers and education. Sam Pizzigati, former publications director for the National Education Association, envisions a trade weekly supported by unions and by advertising, which would give it some economic basis for editorial independence. But unions could also effectively expand the labor press on the cheap by providing support—including money, paid subscriptions or mailing lists—to progressive, pro-labor publications or by funding independent reporting on labor-related issues.

Ultimately, a revived labor press depends on revitalization of the labor movement itself. But until that happens, labor must explore how to talk more effectively to others and within its own ranks. It may be too much to hope in the foreseeable future for a vital labor press, voraciously consumed by working people. But it is still possible—and necessary—for unions to be influential contributors to a more powerful alternative media.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  It seems to me the idea is over due, if we build an international labor press then the readers will come. www.CLNews.org - educate-agitate-organize - clnews-subscribe@lists.clnews.org

  Posted by Tony Budak on Apr 20, 2005 at 10:54 PM

  I find it completely amazing that progressive commentators and labor media folks continue to ignore the development of Workers Independent News (WIN). WIN is the first nationwide labor radio news program launched in more than 50 years; after three years on the air its daily headline newscast is hard by more than two million people. Amazingly, WIN has grown with little to no support (and even some opposition) from entrenched “institutional” AFL-CIO leadership. It’s almost as if the folks at WIN have worked hard to give labor a voice that it chooses to ignore. With perspectives like this article, it really should come as no surprise that labor’s media voice gets marginalized, and having been involved in actually doing something about it I, for one, would like to see more folks put some substance behind their words for a change.

  Posted by John Anderson on Apr 21, 2005 at 8:22 PM

  Here’s a reality check. The best labor journalism heavily depends on the willingness and ability of labor communicators to do their job, which is not an easy one. For every labor communicator who has an idea of how to improve their communications strategy, there are hudreds who will stick to their responsibilities and refuse to do any additional work. And why should they? They are not getting paid to do the additional work of building stronger relationships between unions and their membership. If they were to even try to improve their comminications strategy they would end up having to deal with a lot of political posturing and meet plenty of resistance along the way and they would face a lot of criticism due to the fact that they are not an savvy as other publications. What motivation is there for an individual communicator to take it upon himself to work harder for something that probably won’t succeed. Most labor publications don’t even see the light of day outside of their local union. Central Labor Councils cannot mandate that local unions improve their communications strategy and national surveys have shown that the most heavily read labor publications are the local ones. Another major challege to improving labor communications is that almost every single labor union that I know of has a lot of distrust for anyone outside of their local. I love the quotes that building trades people put out about how they don’t need the opinions of people who have never been in their shoes. The distrust goes way up when they get opinions from people who are not union members, regardless of what degree the industry that person is in is unionized. There have got to be a million more stereotypical reasons why the labor press as a whole will probably never succeed. There are a lot of glossy newsletters that win awards from the ILCA or some other top down body and the reality is that those people are financed and controlled by union presidents which make their publications look more like propaganda than something that would represent the views of every day workers. And I didn’t even mention all the communists and socialists who put out papers that look like they are labor publications at various rallies. There are also a lot of really bad websites that provide a disincentive to others who were thinking of starting their own.

  Posted by Devil's Advocate on Apr 22, 2005 at 7:02 PM

  I am not affiliated with any labor or union organization, but I think labor is central to a renewed progressive movement in this century.  I think the idea laid out here is crucial, but it will take a long, long time to develop.  However, by itself I don’t see how it could go very far.  It should be part of a four-part, long, long-term plan, the other three being:

  a) the networking of all progressive forces through a shared vision and strategic initiatives that
  b) targets as our ultimate political objective the redsign of our economic tool the corporation, alongwith the democratization of our whole system of wealth, and
  c) the development of a movement to move our country from a democracy by consent to a democracy based on active, informed participation; that is, from a weak democracy to a strong democracy.

  The Union Stations idea discussed here would be a major part of the communication and educational network for such a project.  My preference would be for labor to lead the way in developing the communication and educational systems for this overall project.

  All of this could be done by the end of this century if:

  1)there is indeed the potential political will to create a much more advanced form of democracy, and
  2) all of the planning, strategizing, and actions are done within the context of this 21st century project.

  Why in g—-’s name would anyone propose thinking in terms of 100 years in the face of all the crises we face today?  Because—maybe—it’s the only thing that will work.  For 130 years we have worked to regulate corporate power and wealth discrimination.  We have yet to go for the jugular of corporate America—the legal status of the corporation and the docrtrine of shareholder primacy—with a force commensurate to the task.  The only force I can think of that could measure up to the job is a grassroots movement of informed and active democratic people determined to advance our democratic culture and transform its anti-democratic institutions.  We have several models to work from: the populist movement in late 19th century; the transformation of the Apartheid system in South Africa; and Civil Rights movement, which began in great confusion and against great odds 90 years before it burst forth in the 1950s.

  This would be some feat to pull off.  Maybe impossible, but trying would take us places we probably have never dreamed of.  And then there would be the 22nd century.

  Posted by joncehart on Apr 23, 2005 at 12:39 AM

  I just happened to search google news today. I typed the words “workers strike”.  I saw about 35 strikes launched somewhere on this planet in the past 24 hours!! And I got tired after about 9 pages of google listings.  These are just the english sites!!! 

  The class struggle, the international struggle is a prominent fact of daily life and we don’t even know this.  THe problem with CLNews, WIN etc. is their national character and thier obsession with unions.  A lot of workers actions are done outside and AGAINST the unions who divide workers according to sections and by national boundaries. 

  It would be quite easy for the progressives to show us just how major a part of life the class struggle is but they won’t because they are incapable of seeing the big picture.  They are obsessed with AMerica and the political scene locally and are convinced that the unions are a tool workers can utilise in their struggles.

  Posted by Maximillian Al-Dakari on Apr 23, 2005 at 7:44 AM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 12 posts.

Also featured Too Much Media
Making Connections
Five Ways to Combat Conservative Media

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by David Moberg

• Solidarity Reunited?
  Unions rally around shrunken UNITE HERE as it takes on its former ally.Posted on July 4, 2009
• Can a Union Divided Stand?
  UNITE HERE dissolves in conflict ... with a little help from SEIU.Posted on July 1, 2009
• Battling Over Employee Free Choice
  The fate of labor’s top legislative priority is in the Senate’s hands.Posted on May 28, 2009
• Flower Power
  Colombian plantation workers are fighting an uphill battle to unionize and secure better working conditions.Posted on May 3, 2009
• The Meltdown Goes Global
  It is time to rethink capitalism. Posted on April 15, 2009