<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Gets Inside Reporters' Heads
Review: "Framed! Labor and the Corporate Media," by Christopher Martin.
Reviewed by David Swanson
May 27, 2004
I didn't need to be told that the corporate media do a horrendous job of covering organized labor. What this book tells us that I have not seen analyzed so well elsewhere is what the thought processes look like that lead to this horrendous coverage.
It's simple enough to observe that the media support capital and work against the concerns of workers. But why are there exceptions to this rule? And what are the thoughts going through a producer's head? I am certain that few producers or editors routinely think to themselves "Hey, here's a good way we can hurt workers." It would hurt the members of the media themselves too much to think such thoughts. What do they think instead?
According to Christopher Martin, five main themes organize their thinking. The first is that the consumer is king. The media are able to cover labor disputes without touching on the workers' demands or difficulties and while blaming labor unions, through the simple guise of viewing all events from the point of view of the consumer. For example, more attention is paid to tourists' travel delays than to the reasons airline employees have for going on strike. And through the "objective" technique of quoting "both sides" without commenting on the accuracy of the claims, the media often manage to distort the facts, even though that is not what they think of themselves as aiming to do. The direction in which they distort the facts is effected by the second and third themes.
The second theme is that the process of production is none of the public's business. The point of view that the media adopt is one of a consumer uninterested in how a product or service is produced and only interested in acquiring it as soon as possible for the lowest possible price. This theme eliminates work - you know, that activity that most of us spend most of our time doing -- from the acceptable topics for our public discourse.
Third, the economy is driven by great business leaders and entrepreneurs. Because members of the media believe this, it makes sense for them to discuss a labor issue with a panel made up exclusively of owners and managers. This is "fair and balanced" if you have convinced yourself of these themes.
Fourth, the workplace is a meritocracy and those who run into trouble have no one to blame but themselves. This thinking grants to all employers freedom from responsibility for how they treat workers. If they treat workers harshly, the workers deserved it. This must be so once you have accepted as an article of faith that the workplace is a meritocracy.
Fifth, collective economic action is bad. Members of the media think they are fair to everyone by being fair to them as individuals. While collective action may benefit many individuals, our shapers of opinion have determined that it is unacceptable and convinced themselves that it causes inflation or disrupts consumer behavior or leads to violence. Many members of the media will, I think, tell you that they believe these five propositions. These are not the underlying Marxist machinations that drive our media. Rather, these are what our "anchors" and "analysts" actually believe, more or less sincerely. This book illustrates the uses of these five frames with well-documented and well-reported case studies of the media's reporting on four strikes, at General Motors, American Airlines, Major League Baseball, and United Parcel Service. Martin concludes that the following steps should be taken:
"1. Workers and allies must protest visibly, vigorously, and strategically.
"2. Labor Unions should use a multifaceted approach.
"3. Labor Unions should utilize nonmainstream media.
"4. Labor unions should seek to maintain and encourage diversity in media ownership." All good points, and even better, Martin says that a high-profile daily labor publication should be created on the internet. I think Martin is wrong to dismiss the question of whether to produce a hardcopy paper. Many do not get their news from the Internet. But starting online makes a lot of sense for financial reasons.
Rating:
Summary: Gets Inside Reporters' Heads
Review: "Framed! Labor and the Corporate Media," by Christopher Martin.
Reviewed by David Swanson
May 27, 2004
I didn't need to be told that the corporate media do a horrendous job of covering organized labor. What this book tells us that I have not seen analyzed so well elsewhere is what the thought processes look like that lead to this horrendous coverage.
It's simple enough to observe that the media support capital and work against the concerns of workers. But why are there exceptions to this rule? And what are the thoughts going through a producer's head? I am certain that few producers or editors routinely think to themselves "Hey, here's a good way we can hurt workers." It would hurt the members of the media themselves too much to think such thoughts. What do they think instead?
According to Christopher Martin, five main themes organize their thinking. The first is that the consumer is king. The media are able to cover labor disputes without touching on the workers' demands or difficulties and while blaming labor unions, through the simple guise of viewing all events from the point of view of the consumer. For example, more attention is paid to tourists' travel delays than to the reasons airline employees have for going on strike. And through the "objective" technique of quoting "both sides" without commenting on the accuracy of the claims, the media often manage to distort the facts, even though that is not what they think of themselves as aiming to do. The direction in which they distort the facts is effected by the second and third themes.
The second theme is that the process of production is none of the public's business. The point of view that the media adopt is one of a consumer uninterested in how a product or service is produced and only interested in acquiring it as soon as possible for the lowest possible price. This theme eliminates work - you know, that activity that most of us spend most of our time doing -- from the acceptable topics for our public discourse.
Third, the economy is driven by great business leaders and entrepreneurs. Because members of the media believe this, it makes sense for them to discuss a labor issue with a panel made up exclusively of owners and managers. This is "fair and balanced" if you have convinced yourself of these themes.
Fourth, the workplace is a meritocracy and those who run into trouble have no one to blame but themselves. This thinking grants to all employers freedom from responsibility for how they treat workers. If they treat workers harshly, the workers deserved it. This must be so once you have accepted as an article of faith that the workplace is a meritocracy.
Fifth, collective economic action is bad. Members of the media think they are fair to everyone by being fair to them as individuals. While collective action may benefit many individuals, our shapers of opinion have determined that it is unacceptable and convinced themselves that it causes inflation or disrupts consumer behavior or leads to violence. Many members of the media will, I think, tell you that they believe these five propositions. These are not the underlying Marxist machinations that drive our media. Rather, these are what our "anchors" and "analysts" actually believe, more or less sincerely. This book illustrates the uses of these five frames with well-documented and well-reported case studies of the media's reporting on four strikes, at General Motors, American Airlines, Major League Baseball, and United Parcel Service. Martin concludes that the following steps should be taken:
"1. Workers and allies must protest visibly, vigorously, and strategically.
"2. Labor Unions should use a multifaceted approach.
"3. Labor Unions should utilize nonmainstream media.
"4. Labor unions should seek to maintain and encourage diversity in media ownership." All good points, and even better, Martin says that a high-profile daily labor publication should be created on the internet. I think Martin is wrong to dismiss the question of whether to produce a hardcopy paper. Many do not get their news from the Internet. But starting online makes a lot of sense for financial reasons.
<< 1 >>
| 
