An image of a worker with a bullhorn accompanied a Vox story (4/13/16) in which no workers were quoted. (photo: Spencer Platt/Getty)
Last Wednesday, approximately 36,000 Verizon workers went on strike, ranging from FiOS installers to network technicians. They demanded a new contract with, among other things, more robust worker protection and the right to not relocate at the company’s whim.
Corporate media coverage of this strike illustrated the fundamental asymmetry of power that still exists between multi-billion-dollar corporations and comparatively small unions. (A union like Communications Workers of America has an annual budget roughly 1/500th of Verizon‘s annual revenues of $131 billion.) An analysis of coverage in two major “old media” outlets (New York Times and Washington Post) and two “new media” outlets (Buzzfeed and Vox) exposes a consistent pattern of prioritizing management’s voice over that of the workers or their representatives, to the tune of roughly 2-to-1.
Below is a comparison of direct quotes from Verizon management and the unions or workers on strike, including press release citations. Multiple quotes from the same source were counted separately if they appeared in a different part of the article. Third-party observations were omitted.
In three New York Times stories, management was quoted eight times to workers’ four. In the Washington Post‘s two reports, the ratio was 6:2 in management’s favor. Buzzfeed‘s three articles favored the company 13 to 7, while Vox‘s lone post had four quotes from management and none from labor. In all four outlets together, there were 31 quotes from Verizon representatives, 13 quotes from workers and their representatives.
The reasons for this discrepancy are many, but one likely culprit is that Verizon, as a corporation with a market value of $212 billion, has a highly sophisticated public relations machine, whereas unions and workers generally do not. Journalists, even when trying their best to convey “both sides,” are likely to fall short in the face of this asymmetry. After all, these reports need quotes, and one side is happy to provide endless high-quality content to dozens of outlets at once, whereas the other side can manage an occasional press release with limited sex appeal.
Other outlets have had some dubious moments. The New Yorker tweeted out a much-mocked headline that insisted the protestors were “relatively privileged” in the economy. While the article itself (4/19/16) was a bit more nuanced, sentiments like this play into the hands of management narratives that Verizon workers are overpaid workers who greedily seeking more while others suffer.
The Verizon strikers are a relatively privileged—and shrinking—part of the economy: https://t.co/QHP1bsR61b pic.twitter.com/qTSC29p6Zc
— The New Yorker (@NewYorker) April 20, 2016
And Huffington Post, while generally having fair coverage, doesn’t disclose it is owned by Verizon, which acquired Huffington Post’s parent company last year for $4.4 billion.
Due to the support of major Democrats like Bernie Sanders and (to a lesser extent) Hillary Clinton, the voices of strikers like those at Verizon are not entirely lost, but the deck is still heavily stacked in management’s favor.
This is one of the fundamental problems with the “both sides” approached to journalism: While noble in theory, it ignores the fact that more often than not, “both sides” are not equal. In labor disputes, massive multinationals have the ability to spend millions of dollars on PR, while those representing the workers don’t. The predictable result is that when corporate media covers a labor conflict, the bosses’ side will get more say than the workers’.
Adam Johnson is a contributing analyst for FAIR.org. Follow him on Twitter at @AdamJohnsonNYC.
Fair coverage would not be equally balanced. It would value people’s issues in proportion to their numbers, meaning bosses, corporations, and their PR would get very little coverage in a labor dispute. One person, one vote.
I noticed every time public employees were due a cost of living raise (and contract negotiations had not yet begun) the media here would start running negative adds about members being overpaid slugs that are a drain on society. And the audience actually believed it!
I don’t understand the word “still” in the following sentence quoted from this article: “Corporate media coverage of this strike illustrated the fundamental asymmetry of power that **still** exists between multi-billion-dollar corporations and comparatively small unions.” It seems to suggest that it could be otherwise. The only way it could be otherwise were if workers, of which I am one, were to seize power. But given that the US working class is overwhelmingly reactionary and identifies with billionaire politicians, I guess the one percent is safe. So long as so-called socialist candidates speak of job creation–the usual rhetoric–rather than the struggle over the length of the working day, I guess the one percent is safe. Elsewhere in another article on Fair’s site it is commented by the author that Sanders gave the right answer when he stated that banks should determine themselves how they should be broken up. Why is that the right answer, because the author says it is? It is exactly the wrong answer. That’s the fox guarding the henhouse. That’s the police force regulating itself. I guess the one percent is safe for the rest of my lifetime. Perhaps my children will see a brighter day.
Just to keep things accurate we are not looking for, “more robust worker protection.” We are simply looking to keep the status quo with minimal COLA wage increases annually. Our current worker protection per our previous contract was very good mind you (in CWA’s case, I cannot speak to our brothers and sisters in IBEW as I am not familiar with their contracts) so in truth we are only looking to maintain our contracts as they were, as we were promised when we were first hired twenty years ago. Nothing more. We are only fighting for justice, not for gain.
JUSTICE — NOT FOR GAIN
Yes, for surely justice is not found in wealth accumulation, but in wealth elimination. For wealth is the property we own above what is needed for a comfortable life. For my laboring-class is the lower-half of society that has never experience anything but poverty since the beginning of civilization,
So, what would happen if your union agreed to except the wage package offered by management, provided a 50% cut in pay for each and everyone in management was agreed to by management?
For justice is equality, which will never be achieved by bringing the bottom up, but by bringing the top down. For everyone in a mad race for the top, is this not what global warming is all about?
John;
Why does it not surprise me that people such as yourself hold that “justice” is found “in wealth elimination”? Hasn’t what’s been happening in Venezuela and other such places made an impact on you? Do you REALLY believe that you can IMPROVE the world by STEALING what others have earned?
I suspect that much of the world would hold that – by way of comparison with themselves – what belongs to you could be considered “wealth”. You ready to give that up? Or, more importantly, work to CREATE wealth for distribution? Or are you satisfied simply in criticizing those who are ALREADY making significant societal contributions by virtue of offering employment and such…while make essentially NO such contributions yourself?
Somehow, I suspect the latter.
Wealth is created by the very workers who would “steal” it (as you so ignorantly put it). The very capitalists that you defend as wealth creators (which would be laughable if it weren’t so terribly tragic and moronic) are the people who create nothing but nonexistent legal entities that usurp the wealth that the workers create. The only excuse for the existence of this class is that investment capital is needed to create those legal entities. Well, sorry to inform you, in a system where the workers democratically control the means of production, “investment” is unnecessary. The capitalist class is really unnecessary especially once the workers “steal” the means of production.
It’s always cute to see the squirrels that dance on the backs of elephants defend the system of exploitation and wealth usurpation because they are the ancillary beneficiaries of such a system. Well not for much longer, my good little bourgeois stooge. Capitalism is folding in on itself just like those Marxist economists have said it would for the last 150 years. Good day
Okay this has been going on for over 5 years. Workers were offered good education packets to retool for the new economy. Explain to me why the unions told their workers not to do the education packets when everyone knew that the jobs they had were being phased out. You were offered free education and you refused to take it. That is called being unrealistic and stupid.
I guess everyone cannot be as smart as you. The problem is me and if I fix myself then I can have another job somewhere. People are lazy and living off the job creators, its all about personal responsibility. I finally get it! Great post.
YBrian;
ou may be speaking sarcastically….but I suspect what you say is all true. A lot of people ARE lazy and they ARE dependent upon the job creators. And, with a little effort, people CAN “fix” themselves and make themselves more attractive to those who DO have the moxie to be “job creators”.
That said, why do I suspect that you DON’T “get it”?
What education “packets” are you talking about? I wasn’t offered an education “packet.” I also wasn’t offered anything that would help me “retool for the new economy.” I love when people who truly have no clue make comments. What Verizon did in the last contract (which was signed in Oct. of 2012 not 5 years ago) was CUT education benefits to a limit of $8k per year for tuition reimbursement. That may sound like a lot of money, but considering the costs of college courses, it doesn’t get you more than a few classes a year. I’d like to know where you can get an education (that won’t take you years to complete) on $8k a year. What is unrealistic and stupid is someone spouting out nonsense as if it’s fact.
I suppose it depends on the college you think you need to attend. I finished my bachelor’s in 2 1/2 years online , only paying for my books. Verizon has paid the whole tuition cost.
Both sides are committing fraud upon Union members and employees. Both have known since no later than 1991 that use and exposure to ncr paper (multi part forms ) such as estimates, contracts, office forms etc. can cause serious adverse health effects including disabilities, birth defects, cancer and death. They have both refused to give warnings to Union members and employees solely in order to collect and use Union dues for political events etc and save money for the unions and for Verizon. All current and former Union members and employees going back to 1991 Amaya be able to file claims against both that could cost them into the hundreds of millions or more in related losses.
I loved the comment in the article of….
“A union like Communications Workers of America has an annual budget roughly 1/500th of Verizon‘s annual revenues of $131 billion”
….as it’s a classic example of comparing apples to oranges. In truth, the Communications Workers of America have 700,000 members, which generate an “annual revenue” of several BILLION dollars for it. That’s far FAR more than any “1/500th” portion.
Talk about a self-serving claim!
You are SO WRONG.
As members of the union we are asked not to comment on the strike. The local union VPs and the District representatives should be the source for comments, but I find that today’s reporters and bloggers don’t seek them out.