The liberal media, fundamentally not.
Much of the press apprears to have picked up the story of the New York transit workers strike and presented it as yet another testament to that plucky New York spirit in the face of adversity. Terrorists armed with airplanes. A regional blackout. And now, the outrages of organized labour.
Even the Globe and Mail was running hard with this valient-citizen/consumers-trump-union-thugs angle:
For commuters facing the first strike since the 11-day 1980 walkout, it was a day to adapt — and there were a variety of options. Some boarded water taxis down the Hudson River, others jumped into carpools, some just stayed home. As they did after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the 2003 blackout, New Yorkers managed to get on with life.
“Hey, can I get a ride?” Jay Plastino asked a neighbour near his home in the northern tip of Manhattan. Mr. Plastino, who was headed to his midtown job, was angry at the union: “This is a big city. Don't they realize that?”
...Throughout midtown and lower Manhattan, workers queued up in the cold to await company-run buses that replaced the idled city subways and buses, or generously shared yellow cabs that became the most popular vehicles in New York. There was a flat $10 fee for cab riders.
“The city is functioning, and functioning well considering the severe circumstances,” Mr. Bloomberg said before ripping into the striking union.
What the newspapers imply with propriety, or at least some semblance of reporting all the relevant facts (we at least get a quote from New York TWU head Roger Toussaint at the end of the G&M article), cable news will unselfconciously scream in your face. So today on CNN, I got to see Wolf Blitzer throwing to Jack Cafferty to complain bitterly about the "inconsiderate, illegal" strikers tying up Christmas shoppers all over New York. No context at all. No mention of what the strike was about. Just anger about all those highly inconvenienced shoppers.
The blase condemnation of the TWU's decision to strike for being "illegal" was ironic given the both-sides-now objectiveness that followed in Blitzer's segments on Bush's illegal wiretapping program. Illegal but maybe justified? Illegal but ok'ed by the Democrats? Illegal but "none of your civil liberties matter much after you're dead?" Fine. But, then, what about these arguments from the NYT's labour reporter Steven Glasshouse and Sewell Chan (via Nathan Newman):
In a survey of 792 bus drivers, station agents, subway conductors and train operators released last week, Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations provided considerable evidence that many workers feel mistreated and undervalued - which could push them toward greater militancy.
The survey, which was conducted in the spring and summer, found that 24 percent of bus and subway workers said they faced serious hazards more than once a month, including smoke, dangerous chemicals and extreme temperatures. It also found that 70 percent felt that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's policies and procedures were unfair.
Many workers said their jobs failed to provide for essential needs. For example, 78 percent said they lacked access to bathroom facilities at least once a month; 51 percent of bus drivers said they had problems finding a bathroom one or more times a day.
New York City Transit, the authority subsidiary that runs subways and buses, issued 15,200 disciplinary violations last year, but workers said they felt they were often blamed while supervisors and passengers were not held accountable. In the survey, 13 percent said they faced abuse from supervisors regularly, while 74 percent said they faced a verbal or physical threat from passengers at least once a year.
Was this a dodgy and/or counterproductive strike? Hard to say. (And, not to condemn all media equally, Glasshouse's scrupelous, balanced coverage, prominently displayed on the NYT website, deserves big kudos. The WaPo's latest take is also reasonably balanced). But criticism of a particular strike is an editorial, not a reporting, position. A press that reflexively sides with those plucky shoppers (and non-union workers) inconvenienced by a strike against the organized workers seeking to win better working conditions simply does not constitute a "liberal media". Not where it counts anyway.
Even the Globe and Mail was running hard with this valient-citizen/consumers-trump-union-thugs angle:
For commuters facing the first strike since the 11-day 1980 walkout, it was a day to adapt — and there were a variety of options. Some boarded water taxis down the Hudson River, others jumped into carpools, some just stayed home. As they did after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the 2003 blackout, New Yorkers managed to get on with life.
“Hey, can I get a ride?” Jay Plastino asked a neighbour near his home in the northern tip of Manhattan. Mr. Plastino, who was headed to his midtown job, was angry at the union: “This is a big city. Don't they realize that?”
...Throughout midtown and lower Manhattan, workers queued up in the cold to await company-run buses that replaced the idled city subways and buses, or generously shared yellow cabs that became the most popular vehicles in New York. There was a flat $10 fee for cab riders.
“The city is functioning, and functioning well considering the severe circumstances,” Mr. Bloomberg said before ripping into the striking union.
What the newspapers imply with propriety, or at least some semblance of reporting all the relevant facts (we at least get a quote from New York TWU head Roger Toussaint at the end of the G&M article), cable news will unselfconciously scream in your face. So today on CNN, I got to see Wolf Blitzer throwing to Jack Cafferty to complain bitterly about the "inconsiderate, illegal" strikers tying up Christmas shoppers all over New York. No context at all. No mention of what the strike was about. Just anger about all those highly inconvenienced shoppers.
The blase condemnation of the TWU's decision to strike for being "illegal" was ironic given the both-sides-now objectiveness that followed in Blitzer's segments on Bush's illegal wiretapping program. Illegal but maybe justified? Illegal but ok'ed by the Democrats? Illegal but "none of your civil liberties matter much after you're dead?" Fine. But, then, what about these arguments from the NYT's labour reporter Steven Glasshouse and Sewell Chan (via Nathan Newman):
In a survey of 792 bus drivers, station agents, subway conductors and train operators released last week, Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations provided considerable evidence that many workers feel mistreated and undervalued - which could push them toward greater militancy.
The survey, which was conducted in the spring and summer, found that 24 percent of bus and subway workers said they faced serious hazards more than once a month, including smoke, dangerous chemicals and extreme temperatures. It also found that 70 percent felt that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's policies and procedures were unfair.
Many workers said their jobs failed to provide for essential needs. For example, 78 percent said they lacked access to bathroom facilities at least once a month; 51 percent of bus drivers said they had problems finding a bathroom one or more times a day.
New York City Transit, the authority subsidiary that runs subways and buses, issued 15,200 disciplinary violations last year, but workers said they felt they were often blamed while supervisors and passengers were not held accountable. In the survey, 13 percent said they faced abuse from supervisors regularly, while 74 percent said they faced a verbal or physical threat from passengers at least once a year.
Was this a dodgy and/or counterproductive strike? Hard to say. (And, not to condemn all media equally, Glasshouse's scrupelous, balanced coverage, prominently displayed on the NYT website, deserves big kudos. The WaPo's latest take is also reasonably balanced). But criticism of a particular strike is an editorial, not a reporting, position. A press that reflexively sides with those plucky shoppers (and non-union workers) inconvenienced by a strike against the organized workers seeking to win better working conditions simply does not constitute a "liberal media". Not where it counts anyway.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home