[link removed]

FAIR
View article on FAIR's website ([link removed])
Top Papers Quoted More Wine Importers Than Union Leaders on Port Strike Paul Hedreen ([link removed])


At midnight on October 1, over 45,000 port workers across the Eastern US began a strike that was to last for three days. This labor action was only the latest in a series of high-profile confrontations between workers and bosses in North America, but corporate media never seem to get better at reporting on such disputes.

In this particular case, the workers' main demands were pay increases and assurances that automation will not replace them. But strikes in general have one straightforward aim: to demonstrate the power of workers, and thus the necessity of meeting their demands, by depriving the economy of their labor. The International Longshoremen’s Association gained an initial victory in securing a 62% wage increase over six years for its workers. Other issues, like automation, will continue to be negotiated, with a January 2025 deadline.

It seems, however, that the more a strike affects the economy, i.e., the more effective it is, the harder corporate media try to smear workers as selfish and destructive. To understand where media loyalties lie, one only needs to look at the experts they seek for quotes.


** Big banking, big shipping, big banana
------------------------------------------------------------
WaPo: Port strike freezes shipping on East Coast, threatening shortages

Washington Post (10/1/24 ([link removed]) ): "The effects are expected to ripple through the country, costing at least hundreds of millions of dollars a day and getting worse each day the longshoremen remain off the job."

When media report on high finance or business dealings, readers will rarely if ever find a quote from a union leader, much less a rank-and-file worker, in the news reports. However, when dockworkers initiate a labor action, it seems the first call a reporter makes is to a Manhattan office tower.

Stifel is an investment bank that manages $444 billion ([link removed]) worth of assets. It’s perhaps best known for tricking five Wisconsin school districts into losing over $200 million in bum mortgage investments ahead of the 2008 financial crisis (Reuters, 12/8/16 ([link removed]) ).

Lately, the phones at the bank’s offices have been overwhelmed with reporters seeking comment on the East Coast port strike. Analysts at Stifel have been quoted a total of four times in the Washington Post (10/1/24 ([link removed]) , 10/1/24 ([link removed]) ) and New York Times (10/1/24 ([link removed]) , 10/1/24 ([link removed]) ). The Post (9/28/24 ([link removed]) ), presumably trying to prevent accusations of favoring finance over accounting, also sought comment from a chief economist at Ernst & Young.

If, when it comes to the economy, you prioritize banana availability above all other considerations, then corporate media has you covered. The Post (9/30/24 ([link removed]) ) spoke to the Big-Ag lobbying and insurance ([link removed]) group the American Farm Bureau Federation, who warned that 75% of the nation's banana supply was at stake. Not to be outdone, the Times (10/1/24 ([link removed]) ) tracked down their own source for the banana angle, Daniel Barabino, COO at the Bronx’s Top Banana, who warned a two-week strike would hit “all the banana importers.”

Later reporting by the Baltimore Banner (10/3/24 ([link removed]) ) revealed that banana heavyweights Del Monte, Dole and Chiquita operate their own ships and are outside the trade group that represents management in bargaining, and thus their ships were still being unloaded. In other words, initial forecasts of banana scarcity were greatly overstated.

Naturally, logistics executives were well-represented in the news pages. The New York Times quoted the directors of two ports (9/24/24 ([link removed]) ), as well as four members of management at different logistics firms (10/1/24 ([link removed]) , 10/1/24 ([link removed]) ). The Washington Post quoted at least seven logistics executives in their coverage (9/18/24 ([link removed]) , 9/28/24 ([link removed]) , 9/30/24 ([link removed]) , 9/30/24
([link removed]) ), not to mention numerous importers and business owners.


** Missing workers
------------------------------------------------------------
NYT: For East Coast Wine Importers, the Port Workers Strike Brings Fear and Uncertainty

The New York Times (10/1/24 ([link removed]) ) ran an article on what the dockworkers strike might mean for wine importers—but no article on what the dockworkers strike might mean for dockworkers.

Union leaders were not totally silenced. Since September 24, four ILA leaders have been quoted by the New York Times (9/24/24 ([link removed]) , 9/26/24 ([link removed]) , 9/29/24 ([link removed]) , 10/1/24 ([link removed]) ). For those keeping track, that is two fewer than the six wine importers the Times has quoted in coverage of the port strike (9/30/24 ([link removed]) , 10/1/24 ([link removed]) ).

The number of rank-and-file dockworkers quoted by the Times is zero. To be fair, it seems that the union has instructed picketers to not talk to reporters, an understandable measure for message discipline.

However, in the lead-up to the strike, the Times found time to talk to Christmas tree, clothing and mango importers (9/24/24 ([link removed]) , 9/30/24 ([link removed]) ). These people were understandably concerned for their livelihoods. However, by failing to interview even one dockworker or any of their families, the Times is showing their readers a picture where only the business owners are concerned for the economy, for their families, for the holiday season.

Will longshoremen have enough time to spend with their families or have enough money for gifts this Christmas? Readers of the Times have no idea.

Instead, Times coverage (10/3/24 ([link removed]) ) has focused on Harold Daggett, the union’s president, and his “autocratic” style and “generous salary.” When the only union member profiled by the Times is depicted as rich, corrupt and incompetent, it encourages a dismissal of the union’s struggle as a whole.

Even once the strike ended, the Times (10/3/24 ([link removed]) ) just couldn’t find a worker to quote. Instead, the piece extensively quoted the chief executive of the Anderson Economic Group, a corporate consulting ([link removed]) firm, who was unhappy that the strike had been settled:

I cannot recall an episode that had so little effect on the economy, led to such a short strike and resulted in such a huge increase in earnings for workers who are already making over $100,000 a year…. We tend to shrug off the costs, but it does affect our ability to build things and export them.

During the UAW strike, Sarah Lazare noted that the Anderson Economic Group was used by media to decry labor's threat to “the economy” without mentioning their auto-industry clients (American Prospect, 8/23/23) ([link removed]) . The firm was also cited on the danger posed by the UPS strike (FAIR.org, 9/26/23 ([link removed]) ). It's a group you would naturally turn to if your were looking for a quote decrying labor getting a larger slice of the economic pie.


** Loud on wages, silent on profits
------------------------------------------------------------

Corporate media coverage of longshoremen’s wages has emphasized that some union members make around $160,000 (Washington Post, 10/1/24 ([link removed]) ). One story even reported that salaries for New York and New Jersey longshoremen range to “over $450,000” (Washington Post, 9/28/24 ([link removed]) ).

Per the report ([link removed]) that the Post seems to be referencing (they don’t bother to give a citation), the Port of New York and New Jersey elects to pay certain workers “special compensation packages,” which are not governed by the collective bargaining agreement. In other words, the Post is using some exceptional cases in the Port of New Jersey and New York, unconnected to the contract that's up for negotiation, to suggest that some people are being paid nearly half a million dollars to load freight. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the 45,000 dockworkers whose salaries are governed by the collective bargaining agreement are maligned.

The starting wage rate for a dockworker is just $20 an hour. Given that the top wage ([link removed]) (after six years of service) under the current contract is $39, a 40-hour-per-week salary would net a senior worker just over $80,000. To earn in the hundreds of thousands, overtime is clearly needed. However, the New York Times (10/1/24 ([link removed]) ) reports merely that dockworkers “say they have to put in long workweeks to earn that much,” with no elaboration on whether or not that is true.

When nearly every story on the port strike mentions that dockworkers make up to $100,000 or $200,000, the object is clear: Media want readers to question if these “workers without a college degree” (New York Times, 10/1/24 ([link removed]) ) really deserve a salary commensurate with the 10.5 million Americans in management occupations ([link removed]) .

These ports are up and down the East Coast, including in high-cost-of-living metro areas like New York and Boston. Labor unions are one of the few paths to middle-class security available to most American workers. Yet it is standard practice for labor coverage in corporate media to suggest that workers fighting for their share is tantamount to greediness.
Economist: Boom times are back for container shipping

Soaring profits for shipping companies is an important business story (Economist, 6/27/24 ([link removed]) )—until it comes time for those companies to renegotiate labor contracts.

Shipping company profits, on the other hand, are rarely reported. When shippers' high profits are mentioned, they're often not presented as a fact, but as something that is “argued” by workers (e.g., Washington Post, 10/1/24 ([link removed]) ).

However, outside of strike coverage, the shipping industry seems to be quite healthy. “Boom Times Are Back for Container Shipping,” according to a recent Economist headline (6/27/24 ([link removed]) ). The windfall profits of the pandemic era, over $400 billion, are believed to be larger than the sum total of profits since containerization was implemented in 1957 (CNN, 9/26/24 ([link removed]) ). Indeed, some of the pandemic-era inflation that has eroded dockworkers' real wages may be due to the outsized pricing power ([link removed]) of the oligopolistic ([link removed]) shipping industry (Bloomberg, 1/18/22 ([link removed]) ; The Hill, 2/2/22
([link removed]) ).

Why was there little mention of these profits in strike coverage? Readers are encouraged to view longshoremen as greedy and unreasonable, which is less sustainable when worker demands are juxtaposed with record profits. The easiest way to avoid that juxtaposition is to omit profits from the conversation. (In the same way, it's easier to hate ([link removed]) professional athletes for their multi-million dollar salaries when you ignore the billions they are making for the team owners.)


** Frightening readers to management's side
------------------------------------------------------------
NYT: How the Dockworkers’ Strike Could Ripple Through the Economy

New York Times (10/1/24 ([link removed]) ) warned of "cascading effects — such as layoffs — at American firms, including in the auto industry."

The economic effects of the strike have been much-bandied. The cost to the US economy, depending on your source, could amount to $3.78 billion per week (Washington Post, 10/1/24 ([link removed]) ), $4.5 billion to $7.5 billion per week (New York Times, 10/1/24 ([link removed]) ) or a whopping $5 billion per day, according to the brain trust at J.P. Morgan (New York Times, 9/30/24 ([link removed]) ).

While these numbers are supposed to frighten the reader into siding with management, what they are really doing is demonstrating the importance of labor being paid well and treated well. The fact that dockworkers’ labor is necessary to facilitate up to $5 billion in commerce every day is evidence that their labor is of the utmost importance, and an argument for their being compensated as such.

Besides serving up run-of-the-mill worker bashing, the Washington Post (9/29/24 ([link removed]) , 10/1/24 ([link removed]) , 10/1/24 ([link removed]) ) has taken the strike as an opportunity to raise the specter of pandemic-era inflation and price hikes. The Post (9/28/24 ([link removed]) ) quoted Ernst & Young chief economist Greg Daco: “A work stoppage could slow progress on bringing inflation under control.” Never mind the fact that inflation has already been tamed (Politico, 9/11/24
([link removed]) ).

Other outlets have a more staid forecast, with the New York Times (10/1/24 ([link removed]) ) noting that “a rapid acceleration in inflation” is unlikely.

Framing a strike as potentially strangling the economy (with little mention of the hardship striking workers will no doubt face) serves to help the reader, whose economic situation is almost certainly closer to the workers, identify instead with the multibillion-dollar logistics companies.

It’s not that workers are seeking to destroy the economy. However, it is up to the workers to look out for their own interests as labor share ([link removed]) continues to decrease, especially in the face of automation (Marketplace, 4/12/24 ([link removed]) ). Most Americans are sympathetic ([link removed]) to unions and union members, but when it comes to labor actions, media try demonization above all else.


** False choice
------------------------------------------------------------
WaPo: Biden may face tough choices as port strike continues

This Washington Post article (10/2/24 ([link removed]) ) closes with a warning to President Joe Biden against "an approach to industry highly deferential to labor unions."

Corporate media attempted to use the economic chaos apparently on the horizon to paint a less-than-rosy picture for the incumbent Democrats. With the presidential election a month away, the strike has been posed as a tough choice for President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris between supporting unions and averting economic destruction. The Washington Post (10/2/24 ([link removed]) ) reported that

Biden told reporters Tuesday that he would not use a federal labor law to force the longshoremen back to work…. But whether—or for how long—the president will stick to this posture has become a source of speculation in Washington, as Democrats try to project economic stability ahead of the November election.

Elsewhere, the Post (9/30/24 ([link removed]) ) noted that some economic forecasters “assume that, with the election just weeks away, Biden will intervene in the labor dispute to head off more serious economic costs.” The New York Times (10/1/24 ([link removed]) ) took a similar tone:

The prospect of significant economic damage from a strike puts President Biden in a quandary five weeks before national elections. Before the strike, he said he was not going to use a federal labor law, the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, to force an end to a port shutdown…. But some labor experts said he might use that power if the strike started to weigh on the economy.

The Times failed to actually cite any of these labor experts who said President Biden might use the anti-labor ([link removed]) Taft-Hartley Act, a controversial law that began the slow demise ([link removed]) of organized labor since 1947. However, this framing supports the idea that a strike is effectively a hostage situation, with the workers putting a gun to the head of the economy, and the government must choose one of those two sides. Left out of the equation are the corporations, who have the power to end the strike immediately by sharing some of their inflated profits with their workers.

It should not be surprising that corporate media redirect readers’ anger towards workers. US news outlets have a habit ([link removed]) of omitting wealth and income inequality from their coverage, and coverage of labor actions ([link removed]) is no exception.
Read more ([link removed])

Share this post: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Twitter"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Twitter" alt="Twitter" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Facebook"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Facebook" alt="Facebook" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Pinterest"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Pinterest" alt="Pinterest" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="LinkedIn"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="LinkedIn" alt="LinkedIn" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Google Plus"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Google Plus" alt="Google Plus" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Instapaper"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Instapaper" alt="Instapaper" class="mc-share"></a>
​

© 2021 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you signed up for email alerts from
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting

Our mailing address is:
FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York, NY 10001

FAIR's Website ([link removed])

FAIR counts on your support to do this work — please donate today ([link removed]) .

Follow us on Twitter ([link removed]) | Friend us on Facebook ([link removed])

change your preferences ([link removed])
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
[link removed]
unsubscribe ([link removed]) .