reprinted from 

March 2003

Is the Media's Labor Coverage Biased?

Is the news media fair to workers and their unions?

Dr. Robert Bruno, University of Illinois, Chicago, recently completed a 10-year study of labor coverage by the Chicago Tribune, entitled: "Evidence of 'Class Anxiety' in the Chicago Tribune Coverage of Organized Labor."

Labor received a bum rap from the newspaper, according to Bruno. First, labor was almost invisible, with only 386 stories in that decade directly related to labor.

By examining adjectives, the study concluded that 77 percent of stories were negative toward labor.

In examining content, Bruno found that 32 percent of stories were about labor disputes, lock-outs or strikes. In these dispute articles, 95.3 percent of descriptive language was negative.

Only 11.4 percent of stories were about positive, productive labor management relations. 31.1 percent of these positive stories were about successful collective bargaining. Most o these stories were much shorter in word length than labor dispute stories.

In the 10-year period, there were only 17 positive stories on union political involvement and 16 on organizing. Less than one story annually centered on unions improving working conditions.

Breaking the stories down by industries, professional sports labor relations led the way, with 79 percent of those stories negative in tone. Public employees were next in total stories, followed by airlines, and remaining sectors (auto, education, health care) accounting for less than 20 stories each.

Chicago Tribune labor reporter Stephen Franklin disputed the total numbers, noting he averages 210 stories annually.

He noted his emphasis is on workplace issues - health care, pensions, globalization - that include labor unions, but are not necessarily exclusively union issues.

In its conclusions, the study noted that anti-union bias is present in the Chicago Tribune.

In its final conclusion, saying that workers were negatively characterized, the study said: "The Tribune's reporting suggests that worker-based resistance emerges out of greed and laziness; that democratic dissent within the ranks indicates disorder and division; and that organizations run by leaders with working class characteristics are ineffective at best, and criminal at worst."