> Then how come that the pro-labor _The Guardian_ is one
> of the most resepcted newspapers on the other side of
> the pond? France, Germany, Italy etc. have their
> pro-labor papers too, no?
This is the same Guardian online, right. I don't know much about the print version, so I can't comment there.
There are a bunch of differences between the U.S. and these European countries. On challenge is that there is no history of labor-oriented newspapers, at least in the last 50 years, so it would be an uphill battle to get people to read such a paper. The other big problem is geography. You have to have lots of capital to make a national labor newspaper work. Then you got to get average people to buy it.
A better strategy might be to focus on video, radio, cable, and the Internet. KKFI here carries a syndicated labor news update which they run before Democracy Now. I'm not impressed with that program. We also have a local weekly program on labor which is pretty decent.
I think that if labor wants to "set the agenda" they need to understand the current media landscape. Most younger people aren't watching TV or reading newspapers. One possible option would be to create a labor-oriented version of the Drudge Report. The Huffington Post site has turned into an excellent liberal version of Drudge, but you just can't slap up labor articles and expect people to flock to your website.
> Saturating mainstream media with pro-labor contents is
> fine but there is one pesky thing - ownership control.
> Do you really think that the Murdochs& Co. would
> allow serious pro-labor contents in the media they
> own?
Of course. Wasn't our own Liza on CNBC this week? There is space in the current media landscape for labor voices, but we can't exploit that if we don't have the talking heads or programming. One of my chief problems with the "media monopoly" mindset of the Left is that it promotes the same old trope about us poor leftists being victimized by the big guys. Just look at what the right wing and religious right have done with media. We can do the same thing, but we have to do it and stop whining about Fox News and Murdoch.
> I also do not quite understand why you assume that
> pro-labor paper would be mostly boring "shop-floor"
> talk. It does not have to - The Guardian covers the
> same variety of topics as any other serious paper, but
> without the pro-business, anti-labor edge.
I think that is possible and that some smart people could make it work, but I also know the left too well. If labor went to people such as the folks who publish LiP, Adbusters, Clamor, the Indypendent and/or Left Turn, they could swing a sexy labor publication. But if they go the route of the Socialist Worker, Labor Notes and Z Magazine, they will pour your money down a black hole.
> I tend to agree with your assessement that liberal and
> labor leaders are stuck in the past, or perhaps as
> have their heads stuck up their arses (and often their
> bosses' as well) - but that strategy is visibly
> loosing grounds and will have to change sooner rather
> than later.
I think many of us see those changes. I see them which is why I don't kvetch about the big unions as much.
> I think it would be a good use of resources such as
> this one to develop a comprehensive pro-labor strategy
> of influencing public opinion. I mean not just
> talking what needs to be done but above all
> identifying existing institutions - unions, think
> tanks, foundations, civic associations, businesses
> (especially coops) even religious organizations and
> developing a network that would allow them to
> cooperate closely and coordinate thier efforts - just
> as the right wingers are now doing. Having a
> dedicated media outlet controlled by pro-labor
> interest seems like an essential element of such an
> effort.
You are right on target, but is anybody even attempting this? Working people would get more out of what you describe than labor spending one dime on the Democrats over the next five years.
Chuck