In the L.A. Times today (9/21/11), media reporter James Rainey asks a very important question:
In a week that saw the number of people in poverty hit a half-century high and President Obama propose a tax increase on those with million-dollar incomes, will America and the American media finally dig in for a serious conversation about class?
And his evaluation of the media’s performance on wealth-and-poverty issues accords with what FAIR has found when we’ve looked at the coverage (Extra!, 9-10/07, 6/10). Here’s Rainey’s take:
Even though economists say the gap between haves and have-nots has been building for three decades, the growing income disparity and its causes have come up for discussion mostly as a sidebar–removed from the front page, rarely the lead story on the evening news.
But when it comes to explaining why the media fail to cover “arguably the central story of our times,” I can’t help but feel there’s something missing. Rainey offers several possibilities:
The media excel at stories that are instantaneous, visual and that produce clear winners and losers…. Despite the struggles of our own industry, most journalists still live more cheek by jowl with the people who are getting by…. In the years since the late 1970s, journalists have been focused elsewhere…aimed at other great socioeconomic collisions…. The working class has no obvious lobbying group or advocate to bring its interests to the fore…. A majority of the public hold an almost mystic faith in the upward mobility ideal…. They hesitate to speak out, lest they sound as though they are whining…. There’s plenty of fodder for those who want to create a counter, not-so-bad narrative…. “Americans have been uncomfortable for a long time talking about class…. The idea that there is a strong class system undercuts the claims we cherish most.”
There may be some truth to each of these explanations. But the most obvious explanation for why U.S. media avoid talking about growing inequality is that they are almost entirely owned by, and dependent for the bulk of their income on, large corporations that have greatly benefited from that inequality. Why should we be surprised that the institutions that control our national conversation use that power to protect their own interests?
Certainly they’re not going to quit doing that as long as there’s a taboo against pointing out that that’s what they’re doing.
It doesn’t matter if the paper is owned by a huge corporation or just a single investor; the class that operates the paper in both of those cases is the class that makes its living from the work of others. If the paper was owned and managed by the journalists themselves, things would look very different.
What “the media excel at” is obfuscation and fabrication, and that’s overwhelmingly been the case since Hector was a pup, hasn’t it? That’s their function within the democratic facade.
And the working class does have “advocate(s) to bring its interests to the fore.”
They’re called unions.
But given the pitiful state of much of their “leadership”, and the incestuous relationship many have with the Democratic Party, the question is just how well they fit that definition, isn’t it?
It’s also important that the media produces an elite of reporters and commentators whose incomes (well into six digits) pushes them to identify with the wealthier portion of the population.
You fell for the trick.
The only people who give a rat’s a@@ about the MSM are the MSM. Some of us older ones still have the kneejerk ‘watch the 6 o’clock news’ meme, but these dinosaurs are zombies, chasing ratings instead of brains.
No one born after 1970 cares about the MSM. Or is even sure what it means.
Who cares if Fox or MSNBC covers a certain event? Fox and MSNBC.
Now, let’s all sit through the commercials so we can watch the weather report……
Arguably the most central media criticism of our time. Thank you FAIR! Harrison
The paradigm is shifting from conservative versus liberal to corporations versus democracy.
It’s also true that the “left” doesn’t talk about class. Labor unions talk about the “middle class,” but no one on the left talks about poverty, either the “new poor” created by the financial meltdown, or the long-suffering, long-term unemployed and poor people in the ghetto, or the poor people working full time for ridiculously low wages. None of these people are represented in the organized left, which is still focused on international affairs and environmental issues far removed from the core concerns of so many – if not most – Americans.
The “alternative” press occasionally covers these people and these issues, but for the most part, I find it astounding how closely the Nation, Daily Kos, etc. reflect the dominant narratives of the MSM. It’s all about the debt crisis, the need to reelect Obama, the Tea Party, etc.
If you were to call them out as well, it could be a good reality check for the “movement.”
I get it now, Doug! What unions need is a more incestuous relationship with the party that is out to destroy them. Suicide anyone? Karen, the media on the left, in fact, does talk about these things. Some good documentaries on Free Speech TV. Sorry you haven’t been paying attention to them. Also Michael Moore is almost religious on the subject. Of course those on the Right will try to shame you out of listening to them. CNN just accused the efforts by people on the Left to take a closer look at the Troy Davis verdict as being nothing more than a PR stunt. That silly Pope and his pals need a heads up, right?! Don’t let the Right shame you. If they ever come up with some facts instead of shame to get your attention, then listen to them.
Calling the gap in national discourse “a lack of discussion on class” is a big fat red herring.
There, I said it. :) It’s true, Americans don’t “do” class for all the reasons Naureckas and the above posters argue. But you know what? It doesn’t matter much.
Discussing “class” isn’t what’s necessary. What’s necessary is FIXING the structural obstacles to lifting low-income people out of poverty; achieving a living wage and decent living conditions for the poor; and stabilizing the middle class with all the protections we used to have (plus -as long as this is a wish list- a whole lot more that more progressive [meaning practically ALL] industrialized countries have offered their populations) to bolster the economy, equality, democracy and, well, happiness and well-being for everyone.
I would argue that calling all that “a discussion about class” is both misleading and counter-productive. I am all for academics and people like us discussing class on the intertubez for fun, enlightenment, and perhaps activism. But in policy? Among mainstream, low-information Americans? It’s just not necessary and what’s more, it’s bad strategy.
Here’s why: “Class” suggest a static, innate, essentialist quality that is antithetical to how Americans see ourselves. Unless there’s a new general theory, really, it IS a pretty elitist notion.
Persistent low wealth, debt, low education outcomes, poor health, riskier jobs – THAT is a reality for many Americans, and honestly? It needs a REMEDY, not a discussion. People don’t need to have that meta conversation so much as they need bona fide protections and a floor in material conditions.
And we need it bad – I’m ready to start handing out the pitchforks.
Carol, either you didn’t get what I was trying to say, or I don’t get what you’re saying in response.
I’ll be happy to clarify, if necessary, if you’ll reciprocate.
Deal?
Confusing what this article is getting at.If i had a twin,and we had divergent interest.Lets say i went to college/med school and so on,and he went into the restaurant business as a cook.We would see a great disparity in wealth.Is the question should my worth be distributed to him?After all it was our choices.
Is it that those who are perceived to be without choices are due the benefit of my choices and hard work?I see the inequality clearly.How do we change that?I think it all revolves around the middle class.And that is being destroyed.That was the safe haven.There is hard work and reckoning to be done here.To faub it off on lets get it out of the hides of the rich, is just plain lazy.Short sighted and the loosing game.Want to recreate America?Recreate her entrepreneurial spirit. In this way you Shore up the middle class,the poor, and allow the recreation of wealth in the hands of MORE people.What is happening is the government is destroying this country.The super rich who are the best able to weather this get richer .and the government turn your anger at them- for self preservation.
I understand perfectly what Carol is taking about. But first of all, class is not just determined by the amount of money you have, but your interests, education, and lifestyle. My first 19 years of life we had little money but loads of books, (from the library) art (my father showed me how to do watercolor) music (we had an old upright piano but I learned to play). And I managed to get to college in NYC which luckily for me at that time was free. However, as you see this lack of money didn’t put us in the poor class. We were lower middle class. And when I became a NYC teacher (low salary and all) after 25 years in the inner city, I am definitely middle class retired. And my union looks to support candidates that best benefit teachers and children.. And the money for the support does not come from union Dues. It comes from a completely separate check-off (totally voluntary) called COPE where I donate $10 a month from my salary. And further in my county we have a another political party called the Working People’s Party.
Continued from above – many Afro-American families are just like I was, Poor in money but rich in culture using the library, old pianos, etc. But they, and I were struggling to pay rent and make ends meet. Luckily we were young because we had no health insurance. When my father died of Hodgkins’ Disease in 1947 at age 36, we paid his main physician by giving him a beautiful large model sailboat my father built of balsa wood. He accepted this as paymen t in full. Great man.
Sure, Doug. Who doesn’t align themselves with those who speak to their interests? Why is that “incestuous”? If unions hadn’t been assailed by the Right FOREVER maybe they would turn to them now and again. As it is, why would you want to join with those whose only interest is to see you destroyed? That’s suicidal. In the midst of all the cries for all of us to give all and everything to the super rich on a platter of their choosing, I find the only voice in the wilderness objecting to be that of unions. I don’t know what you call leadership, but their willingness to take on that insanity is not only leadership to me , it is a moral beacon in this insane darkness.
Carol, thanks for making that clear. I suspected that was where you were coming from.
However, given what I post here and my dinky little blog, how you arrived at that interpretation of my view is beyond me, and I’d be curious as to your process of deduction.
Doug, please spare me the self -effacing rhetoric about your “dinky little blog”. Those games don’t fly with me. You are not going to intimidate me with that kind of stuff. Heard it all before. I thought you wanted a conversation,yet lo and behold, you wanted nothing more than to belittle. With your superior guidance was I supposed to now understand that my interpretation of “pitiful state of leadership” and “incestuous relationship with the Democratic Party” was so wide of the mark that it is “beyond” you to understand how I arrived at it. The great lengths you went to tell me that is not what you meant might have shed some light..but wait you didn’t attempt anything of the sort. Spare me your wise “clarifications” if this is what they amount to.
Carol, I’m not sure how being nonplussed over how you could have read what I’ve written, and somehow make 2 + 2 come out to 6 â…ÂÂ, could be considered intimidation.
Reading my previous comments or a quick check of the blog should clarify my position, but it doesn’t appear you have any interest in doing so.
Is that the case?
Regardless, I don’t imagine the other folks here are too keen on yet another pointless cybersquabble. I join them in that aversion, and so I’ll make my exit, stage left.
If you wish to continue this, without rancor, you’ll find my email add in the blog intro.
Judith don’t be naive.Your union fights to promote those who will benefit the union leadership. Thats what you are paying for.The last stimulus was all about paying off unions.i wonder does every union person agree with “their union”going lock stock and barrel for liberal candidates?I know a ton of conservative teachers.And conservative tradesmen.guess they better keep their yaps shut right?As far as being middle class retired how old are you?Sounds like you could be as young as 50.And the working people party is a Marxist Leninist party as i recall…or am i mistaken?
Steve, just wanted to say I really like your comment.
Yet the giant ego keeps commenting….
Not you Steve! Not an ounce of obfuscation in your succinct statement!
So what Is the reason that we can’t talk about class ? Is it that if we point out the obvious, the huge and growing gulf between rich and poor, it collides with our whole identity as a country, i.e., the great success story that makes us the development model for the rest of the world ?
Personally, I find it both sad and terrifying that we are losing so much ground as leader. But reality is that the corporate culture, now with more or as many RIGHTS than an individual American ( Supreme Ct “Citizens United” decision) is powerful enough to convince us that we are born to serve them and their almighty profit-seeking goals. This leaves us feeling impotent and confused and watching what we used to have slip away. Is there any solution ?
Jeanne I think you need to study what a corporation is.When you understand what it actually is,it makes it hard to see it as the boogeymn.of course the idea of corporatism is that it is never the corporation you know, or your own corporation that is involved.It is the other guy.And as far as the riff between the rich and the poor.Well the poor have more than my father had when he was poor.And the rich have a lot more than my father when he was rich.So lets say the new rich are richer than the old rich.And that Obamanomics have made more poor, and less middle class.But dont worry soon he will make less rich.And less riches for the rich.And we will all feel better that now everyone -is equally unable to hire us.OOh boy
Also see that since day one the founding fathers chased the same exact “profit driven dream”.
I have only one suggestion. If you haven’t done so yet, get a copy of ‘A People’s History of the United States’ by Howard Zinn. He says in his last chapter that right from the founding fathers, the United States was and has always been set up to benefit the elite, or the establishment, with just enough benefits thrown to enough of the middle class and other complainers to mollify them so they wouldn’t overthrow the government. But nothing has ever been done to change this system so that even the poor would have a living wage, adequate and affordable food, shelter, health care, transportation and security in old age. Even bad periods like the Vietnam war during Nixon were blamed on individual faults and not on the evils of the system – so nothing has changed.