There is a growing consensus in the United States that mainstream commercial
media are by and large not mainstream at all but instead are supportive of
the corporate agenda. Of course, the largest media companies (which provide
most Americans' news) and their large advertisers are themselves mammoth
corporations. In addition to promoting policies that advance corporate
interests, our major media often appear to place profits ahead of investing
in in-depth quality journalism.
To be sure, there are numerous web-based, alternative, and
community-supported media challenging the corporate consensus. But for all
their integrity and brilliance, these media outlets cannot challenge
corporate power. They're too small, they don't frame issues on a national
scale, they don't win debates, and they don't set the political agenda.
But there is a sleeping giant among these alternatives, one that was a major
force in our country in the past * and which could be so again. Some of its
overseas counterparts already have demonstrated their power as opinion
shapers. This giant has its own potentially enormous supply of funding --
one that comes without corporate ties attached. And it is uniquely
positioned to shift our habits of media consumption and participation.
I'm talking about the labor media.
I don't mean the handful of remaining labor reporters at daily newspapers or
their talented but equally limited counterparts in the progressive
magazines. I mean the actual or potential newspapers, magazines, radio
shows, TV shows and websites produced by the thousands of labor unions in
this country, the 64 international unions, the central labor councils,
regional labor press associations, state federations of labor, the AFL-CIO
and the ILCA (International Labor Communications Association), as well as
numerous independent outlets that focus on labor and workers' issues from
workers' points of view. The labor media are "member-supported" entities
with an unmatched membership base, but they need more support from union
members and leaders if they are ever to realize their full potential.
We've done it before. We used to have thousands of labor publications, but
now are down to a scattering of national magazines, a couple of scholarly
journals, and small and struggling newspapers or none at all at many unions.
While this decline has paralleled that of organized labor, it's not
necessarily for lack of resources. Rather, labor has spent entirely too
much on advertising on corporate media and on attempts to spin corporate
reporters, instead of putting its energy into its own media presence. And
by carefully accepting more advertising from union companies not engaged in
labor disputes, labor could increase its media resources.
If we set our minds to it, the labor movement is capable of producing much
more substantial publications, including major national weeklies not written
solely for the membership of any one union, but for the vast majority of
Americans who are being shortchanged by the corporate media. That includes
the 42 million Americans who say they would like to join a union but haven't
been able to. Better labor radio and TV shows are entirely within our grasp
as well. But to achieve these goals we'll also have to increase labor media
democracy, making our publications inclusive of more workers' views --
including those who disagree with union leaders. Otherwise, the labor media
will not be credible to readers in or out of the organized labor movement.
As documented by Andy Zipser, in an article titled "The Labor Press:
watchdog, lapdog, or canary in the mine shaft?" the labor movement has done
this in the past. Indeed, the labor press was so large 50 years ago that
the Wall Street Journal worried, prior to the 1952 elections, that "the
influence of the labor press could be a potent factor in determining voting
results." The labor press was important enough to prompt President-elect
Jack Kennedy to send a message to the 1960 convention of the ILPA
(predecessor to the ILCA), expressing his "deep gratitude for the
unprecedented support which the labor press gave to the Kennedy-Johnson
ticket."
Four years later, the ILPA convention included a televised speech by
Johnson, followed by questions from labor editors. The 1966 convention
included an address by Vice President Hubert Humphrey and a reception at the
White House, at which Johnson again spoke.
But in subsequent decades labor unions, feeling financially pinched, began
turning inward -- and one place where cutbacks have hit hard is in
publications. Many unions now are lagging in the development of websites,
and precious few radio and television shows address workers' concerns. In
addition, many labor papers fail to make room for letters to the editor or
guest columns by members dissenting from viewpoints expressed by a union's
leadership.
At the ILCA, which is the professional association of labor journalists, we
see our mission as one of assisting labor editors with resources that will
free up more of their time for reporting, and of advocating within the labor
movement for greater investment in the labor media and in more democratic
labor media. To these ends, we are developing a clearing house to put
journalism students in touch with labor media internship programs. We are
creating a certificate program in labor communications, to be made available
at various locations around the country. We are working with advertisers to
place more advertising (and money) in labor publications. And, in the
coming months, we will be turning our website at ILCAonline.org into a
source of articles on labor that can be shared among ILCA members, as well
as national reporting from independent media sources.
Our goal is to create an alternative to the corporate news that currently
obscures more than it reveals about the lives of American workers. Although
such efforts will be subject to accusations of bias, we believe that by
openly contrasting news for working families with the corporate press, we
will enhance the growing public awareness that corporate news is not
"objective" or "viewpoint-free." This shift in understanding might even prod
existing media outlets toward more responsible journalism, in which issues
are not covered by simply quoting sources with two opposing points of view,
but in which reporters are expected to comment on whether the facts support
the opposing claims.
A powerful labor media presence would alter our public understanding not
just of workplace issues but of all politics, including foreign affairs and
wars to which working people are sent to kill and die. On workplace issues,
the labor media are needed to force into public discussion the hidden world
of union busting. Such stories need to be told, and purchasing ads or
putting out press releases will not get the job done * as we've already
seen.
Beyond coverage of unions, strong labor media would alter the terms of
discussion of other issues. Anything that was jobless would not be labeled
a recovery. Any trade policy that cost jobs, pay, benefits, rights, and
environmental quality would not go by the name "free." News coverage of a
war costing hundreds of billions of dollars would not remain silent on the
war's impact on the U.S. budget, economy, and jobs.
The labor media may be the secret weapon that our other "alternative" media,
as well as activist organizations whose work is ignored, need if they are to
become more than "alternative". The potential reaches beyond what we can
reasonably expect to achieve through current media reform efforts, and does
so by truly allowing working Americans to become the media. As the Wobblies
used to sing: We have been naught, we shall be all.
David Swanson is Media Coordinator for the International Labor
Communications Association,
http://ILCAonline.org