|
Papers
THE LABOR MEDIA: FLAWED
BUT INDISPENSABLE
By
Dick Meister
Union
newspapers, magazines and websites are flawed, they¹re diminishing
in
number and they often get relatively little attention. But good
or bad,
widely read or not, they are essential tools in the struggle of
working
people for economic and social justice.
Who else will approach the important issues of the day from the
worker¹s
point of view? Cover matters of particular interest to workers,
including
the activities of their unions, that are ignored or ineptly covered
by most
of the mainstream media?
Who
else will counter the mainstream media¹s overwhelmingly pro-management,
anti-labor bias? Who else will act as an advocate for unions and
their
members?
Of
course there are non-mainstream media friendly to labor, but they
are
heavily outnumbered by the generally unfriendly mainstream media.
The
need for an independent labor media is obvious, but so is the need
and
it¹s a great need to correct the flaws that are common
to many union
publications. One of their greatest flaws, surely, is that as advocates,
they usually take the simplistic and unconvincing approach that
the union is
always right, management and the union¹s political opponents
always wrong.
Former
AFL-CIO President Lane Kirkland had good advice for labor editors
on
that score: "The soap box, okay the pedestal, no."
In
too many cases, however, a publication¹s soap box is used solely
as a
platform for the union¹s officers. Those outlets become simply
the voice of incumbent leaders, tools designed to help them remain
in
office. They are full of photos of the officers, quotes from them
and
reports of their activities, with virtually every advance of the
union attributed to them, every setback blamed on outsiders.
That
stems in part from a service club approach to unions frequently
taken
by union members and leaders alike. The leaders treat members as
people to
be sold something, telling them, in story after story, what wonderful
services they¹re getting in exchange for their dues but only
rarely
attempting to involve them in making union policy and otherwise
developing
those services.
There¹s
no space for criticism of where the union is being led, or for any
other material that might stir up internal controversy and debate.
There¹s
no space for the dissenting views of members, other unions or anyone
else,
or even for much news of what rank-and-filers might be doing.
There
are exceptions, of course, but even the best union outlets stress
what the union and its officers are saying and doing over what the
members
are saying and doing.
Shifting
priorities to devote far more attention to the work, activities
and
viewpoints of members and far less to the ceremonial functions of
officers
is just one of many changes that have been suggested by reform-minded
union
advocates. They note that simply opening union newspapers, magazines
and
websites to letters-to-the-editor from members would be an important
step in
that direction.
The
reformers rightly call for more news and less propaganda. They want
more
original reporting, particularly investigative reporting. They want
dissent
and diversity of opinion, full and open debate about officers¹
performance,
and about contract proposals and negotiations and other vital union
matters.
They¹d
also like to have union elections reported in an even-handed,
thorough and lively manner, with equal space and attention devoted
to
incumbent officers and challengers alike, so that challengers aren¹t
treated
as outsiders who are trying to harm the union.
And
why shouldn¹t those dissident union caucuses that put out their
own
publications have space in the regular union outlets? Why should
they be
treated as hostile outsiders?
The
open debate and full rank-and-file participation sought by reformers
is
not unknown in unions. That often goes on at union meetings, after
all.
Members generally don¹t hesitate to voice conflicting opinions
on how to
approach particular issues and solve particular problems, nor fail
to offer
serious criticism of their officers¹ positions. Yet you rarely
read about
that in a union publication. What you¹ll likely read is the
formal position
taken by the union leadership after the debate and a vote, usually
along
with a call for all members to support the position, without much
explanation of the alternatives suggested at the meeting by their
fellow
members.
Yes,
it can be risky to bring internal dissent into the open and possibly
give ammunition to the union¹s enemies, But the risk is a price
that has to
be paid if union members are to be effectively reached. Otherwise,
they may
not read very much of what is put out by their union or actively
support
much of what they do read about. They have to be interested, involved
participants, not merely dues payers.
Reaching
union members can be difficult. Television, radio, the Internet,
newspapers and magazines -- underground, overground, daily, weekly,
monthly,
general, specialized all are vying for the attention of union
members as
of everyone else, and using ever more sophisticated techniques to
do it.
Reaching
out is costly, too. That¹s a particularly serious concern in
these
days of dwindling incomes for many unions that already has led to
a steady
decline in the number of union publications nationwide.
But
however expensive, difficult and risky the task might be, it¹s
among the
most important of those that unions must undertake if they are to
attract
the active new members and supporters they need in order to regain
and
increase the strength, numbers and influence they have lost in recent
years.
It¹s one of the tasks that must be shouldered if the labor
movement is to
bring full democratic rights as well as renewed and increased economic
and
political strength to the nation's working people.
Copyright
© 2006 Dick Meister
|
