The Striking Media Absence of Class War
The United Auto Workers strike against General Motors in 2007 was a brief media reminder that unions exist.
We needed to be reminded. A few decades ago, upward of one-third of the American workforce was unionized. Now the figure is down around 10 percent.
The scant coverage of unions is both a cause and an effect of that steep downturn. The cycle of media focus and union strength — more precisely, of news absence and union weakness — is a classic chicken and egg.
As unions wither, the journalistic establishment has a rationale for giving them less ink and airtime. As the media coverage diminishes, fewer Americans find much reason to believe that unions are relevant to their working lives.
But the media problem for labor goes far beyond the fading of unions from newsprint, television and radio. Media outlets aren't just giving short shrift to organized labor. The avoidance extends to unorganized labor, too.
So often, when issues of workplaces and livelihoods appear in the news, they're framed in terms of "costs" and employer plights. The frequent emphasis is on the prospects and perils of companies that must compete.
Well, sure, firms need to compete. And working people need to feed and clothe and house themselves and their families. And workers hope to provide adequate medical care.
The issue of health insurance, central to the autoworkers' strike, is a political talking point for most candidates these days. But meanwhile, unionized workers are finding themselves in a weakened position when they try to retain whatever medical coverage they may have. And non-unionized workers often have little or none.
With all the media discussion of corporate bottom-line difficulties, the human element routinely gets lost in the shuffle.
Or they simply go unmentioned.
The topic of war in Afghanistan is huge in the media. I can't say much for the quality of that coverage, but at least it keeps reporting that a military war is happening overseas. But what about the economic war that's happening at home?
Phrases like "class war" have been discredited in American news media. Too blunt, too combative, too rhetorical. But, call it what you will, the clash of economic interests is with us always.
Waged from the top down, class war is a triumphant activity — and part of the success involves the framing and avoidance of certain unpleasant realities via corporate-owned media outlets. You don't need to be a rocket scientist or a social scientist to grasp that multibillion-dollar companies are not going to own, or advertise with, media firms that challenge the power of multibillion-dollar companies.
One of the dominant yet little-remarked-upon shifts in the media landscape over the past couple of decades has been the enormous upsurge in business news as general news. A result is that tens of millions of low-income people are seeing constant big news stories about challenges and opportunities for well-to-do investors.
The reverse, of course, is not the case. The very affluent of our society don't often pick up a newspaper or tune in the evening news and encounter waves of stories and commentaries about the dire straits of America's poor people and what it's like to be one of them.
"Class war"? The nation's most powerful editors cringe at the phrase. Why go there? It's not newsworthy. Or so we've been led to believe.
But every day, millions of Americans are painfully aware that — by any other name — class warfare is going on, and they're losing.
Norman Solomon is the author of the book "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death," which has been made into a documentary film. For information, go to: www.normansolomon.com.
COPYRIGHT 2007 DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM