> 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.
The answer is really simple: the people who control the liberal left and the unions think they have all the answers and they are damned sure that they will keep doing things the old-fashioned way.
If the labor movement were a reality show, the clowns running it would have been voted off the island decades ago.
In recent years, rank and file union members have finally started demanding some results, so there will hopefully be some change afoot.
The liberal left, especially the sectarian left and some of my anarchist comrades are stuc in the 1930s when it comes to even talking about workers. I'm on the aut-op-sys list and they are having a discussion about these issues. The language being used by some of these folks is downright archaic. Shop floor? How many American workers even see a shop floor these days? About the only new thinking I've seen on labor organizing has come from Europe, i.e. the peeps talking about precarity.
> Doe
> anyone have any idea what would be the capital and
> operating cost of publishing a labor equivalent of the
> WSJ?
I think you answered your question when you said "the so-called media effect is predominantly agenda setting." The answer is not the labor equivalent of the Wall Street Journal. Who would read it? How many working people want to read about the labor movement and unions other than hardcore sectarians? I think a better solution would be to sink resources and money into writers, artists, and pundits who would set the agenda in the mainstream and alternative media. Michael Moore, for example. How about more syndicated columnists pushing a labor agenda? Why aren't the unions in Washington sponsoring more forums that get on C-SPAN? Yes, C-SPAN is pretty boring sometimes, but the right wingers certainly aren't eschewing putting their panel discussions and events on the network.
It would be much smarter to sink resources into putting labor-oriented media into current media. Starting up a labor equivalent to the WSJ is the 1930 answer to our 21st century needs.
Chuck