--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> Buying ads. Leafletting at subway stations & bus
> stops. Talking to
> what the MTA calls "customers" one-on-one. It would
> have all cost a
> lot less than the fines they're going to have to
> pay.
That is perhaps a good short term strategy but very costly and uneven in a long run - especially vis a vis a steady barrage of pro-business propaganda in virtullu every major media outlet in this country.
Methinks that the "campaigns" approach is not a substitute for a pro-labor daily press that would deliver a steady stream of pro-labor messages. This is important not only to publicize labor's point of view, but more importantly to set pro-labor agenda.
It is quite well known that the so-called media effect is predominantly agenda setting. In other words, media may not necessarily tell people what to think, but they tell them what to think about. In the absence of a major pro-labor media outlet, labor's agenda is forgotten in everyday news, and emerges only in the form of a conflict or a crisis. That already puts labor in a disadvantages position as "trouble makers."
I do not understand why the liberal left and unions cannot puts it material resources and brain power together to start a popular pro-labor newspaper. Doe anyone have any idea what would be the capital and operating cost of publishing a labor equivalent of the WSJ?
Wojtek
__________________________________ Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/