Support ITT by donating used Apple computers. Please e-mail donatecomputers@inthesetimes.com!
PrintDiscuss
Views » January 20, 2004

When Mainstream Media Tells Labor Stories

Organized labor isn’t organized crime, but how would we know?

By Jeff Epton

Share   Facebook Digg del.icio.us Newsvine   StumbleUpon Reddit Furl Propeller
About one in three In These Times readers are members of union households, according to our own 2003 survey. Those readers rarely see unions and union members depicted in a favorable light in news reports — but they understand some fundamental truths about the importance of organized labor that may escape notice by the rest of us.

Unions, as the bumper sticker says, “brought us the weekend.” The eight-hour day, too. A minimum wage. Social Security. Employer pension plans beyond the executive suite. And more.

But those achievements do little to shape the perceptions of labor that dominate our cultural life. For many of the rest of us, organized labor is associated with corruption, high wages for a privileged few and job security for the unmotivated and undeserving.

The disparity in our perceptions of unions is directly connected to the image of labor that is promoted by mainstream news coverage, union officials say.

Discouraged by media attitudes toward unions, many labor leaders don’t even return calls from reporters, says a communication specialist for a Chicago-based union local. And unions rarely consider using the media to tell their stories. Labor’s attitude toward news reporters shouldn’t come as a surprise, she observes.

“When I pick up the phone and call a journalist and say I’m calling from organized labor, it sometimes feels like I might just as well have said, ‘Hi, I’m calling from an organized crime syndicate.’ So many reporters seem to react with suspicion,” she says.

Years ago, major media outlets, especially daily newspapers in big cities, had reporters assigned to labor beats. Those reporters developed personal relationships with union sources in exactly the same way that business and police reporters develop relationships with their sources. In the process, beat reporters develop sympathy for the perspectives of their sources. But the days of media sympathy to labor perspectives are long gone. And a study of labor reporting in the Chicago Tribune, conducted by the University of Illinois’ Chicago Labor Education Program, provides statistical support for the suspicions of union leaders and members.

Out of 386 labor-related Tribune stories, published between 1991 and 2001, researchers found that 77 percent of the “descriptors “ used to signify labor were negative. In the same stories researchers counted only 113 positive adjectives. The study, Evidence of “Class Anxiety” in the Chicago Tribune Coverage of Organized Labor, also found that stories about labor disputes were on the average nearly twice as long as stories about labor agreements. Stories in the sports section about player unions were by far the most frequent type of labor coverage in the paper during the period and 79 percent of those stories depicted labor in a negative light, the study’s authors wrote.

Given that the mainstream media pretends that “objective” journalism is characterized by a balancing of comments from competing sources, the study’s discovery that the news stories routinely favored non-labor sources suggests that the Tribune failed to meet professional journalists’ generally self-serving definition of objectivity.

For the two out of three subscribers to In These Times who are not members of union households, the lesson of the study is not novel: The mainstream media is not a trustworthy source on matters that count. But knowing that to be generally true is not enough. Peace activists know that reporting on war and military matters is not reliable and they compensate by seeking other sources. Justice activists know the same thing in regard to mainstream treatment of race and crime and other domestic issues and also compensate accordingly.

But for progressives with no real connection to unions and the labor movement, it is harder to know that our vision of labor is distorted and problematic. The only progressive movement that has a chance of making real social change in the United States is one the unifies labor with the rest of us. We know we can’t trust the New York Times or the Chicago Tribune, not to mention Fox or CNN, but it’s time we recognized that the people we can trust are the ones who brought us the weekend.

———————

For more about the study contact the Chicago Labor Education Program at 312 413-2997.
  • Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
  • Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!
Jeff Epton is the former publisher of In These Times.

More information about Jeff Epton
Share   StumbleUpon Facebook Digg del.icio.us Reddit Newsvine Propeller Furl
  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    Is there a reason the union bosses make the decisions as to who to support? Why can’t they be democratic and have their members vote?

    A vast majority of unions supported Gephardt and Dean in Iowa. They wasted the hard earned dues that they force their members to pay and they delivered….what exactly?

    Unions pathetically extort money from its members for political gain. If you want to instill a tiny notion of respect, equity, and democracy union PAC’s should be funded solely from voluntary contributions.

    Oh, and maybe they could follow the law for once and report political spending on its tax returns like everybody else? Can you show me more than 3 unions that do this? Is it illegal not to?

    EVERY country that has a greater % of union membership has higher unemployment than the US. You may get a quarter of a year in vacation in France by joining a union but you also end up with a pretty pathetic economy.

    Posted by Ty on Jan 21, 2004 at 4:38 PM

    I’ve seen corruption in many labor unions in my lifetime.  So have many union members.  We see the teamsters support people like Nixon and Reagan.  What are to think by their actions?  Bribes to them by companies to get away with violations of union contracts.  How can we not view unions as not being corrupted?  Time to start over.

    Posted by jeff on Jan 22, 2004 at 5:21 PM

    As a union member for over 20 years, I agree about media bias. Much of it is subtle use of language. My pet peeve is that during negotiations, management proposals are always referred to as “offers”, whereas union proposals are called “demands.” Also, the unions are somehow depicted as acting independently of the employees, even when the rank-and-file is well represented on the bargaining committee and stands solidly behind their proposals. The media never portray management against employees; just management agains “the union.” Often the name of the union isn’t even mentioned, adding to the impression that the union is a scary, shadowy force of evil. During a strike, the only issue sure to be mentioned is the inconvenience to the public caused by the work stoppage.

    Posted by ELLEN BULF on Jan 22, 2004 at 9:39 PM

    Jeff,

    Thanks for fleshing out a story that has an eerie persistance. I write for my union bi-monthly magazine, the Motion Picture Editors Guild Magazine, and have been collecting a range of stories that show just how ignorant, indifferent and even hostile the corporate media is to labor issues. Probably the easiest way to make the case is to notice how frequent and how well-researched the AFL-CIO’s bread-and-butter press releases are. Then take a good look in the New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle et al and see how often the AFL-CIO statements are quoted, or even mentioned. It’s almost zero.

    Frankly it’s amazing to me that the AFL-CIO hasn’t tried to partner up with Al Frankin or some other progressive media person to help get labor’s message out.

    Anyway, before I go off on an endless rant, I do want to thank you for adding some good, solid research to this often neglected idea.

    Best,
    Jeff Burman

    Posted by Jeff Burman on Jan 23, 2004 at 2:55 AM

    Re: Offers / demands

    I have heard union officials “demand” certain terms.  That is the word they use when addressing the membership (and the media), “We demand…”

    I never heard the bosses saying they “demand” workers accept their terms.

    Posted by Nus on Jan 26, 2004 at 6:52 PM
  • 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 9 posts.

Appeared in the February 16, 2004 Issue
Also by Jeff Epton
If you like what you're reading, why not help pay for it?
IN THESE TIMES COMMUNITY MEMBERS