Framed!

The purpose of Martin's book is to inform people of the politics of work and to inform people that unions are not just, "belligerent organizations that protect lazy, unproductive workers". It could be read by anyone, however; it is aimed toward people who have developed a biased opinion due to the media and therefore, the book is meant to inform and persuade. This book would also be suitable for people who do not know a lot about labor unions because Martin explains what they are, not just the connection they have with the media. Martin researched and wrote about labor and the media for ten years, he is a professor at the University of Iowa, and he knows a lot of professors from other highly respected universities. One such school is the University of Michigan where he attended. Many professors contributed their knowledge to this book. Therefore, this book is very credible. Martin explains the strikes and issues in chronological order and uses pictures, quotes, and statistics to aid in his argument. This helps the reader learn and understand better because the book is organized, the pictures are interesting, and the quotes and statistics keep you aware that the material is credible. The book was published in 2004 and all of the issues discussed took place no earlier than the 1990s. My connection to the book is that my mom is an American Airlines Flight Attendant and a supporter of labor unions.

"Framed! Labor and the Corporate Media," by Christopher Martin.Reviewed by David SwansonMay 27, 2004 I didn't need to be told that the corporate media do a horrendous job of covering organized labor. What this book tells us that I have not seen analyzed so well elsewhere is what the thought processes look like that lead to this horrendous coverage. It's simple enough to observe that the media support capital and work against the concerns of workers. But why are there exceptions to this rule? And what are the thoughts going through a producer's head? I am certain that few producers or editors routinely think to themselves "Hey, here's a good way we can hurt workers." It would hurt the members of the media themselves too much to think such thoughts. What do they think instead? According to Christopher Martin, five main themes organize their thinking. The first is that the consumer is king. The media are able to cover labor disputes without touching on the workers' demands or difficulties and while blaming labor unions, through the simple guise of viewing all events from the point of view of the consumer. For example, more attention is paid to tourists' travel delays than to the reasons airline employees have for going on strike. And through the "objective" technique of quoting "both sides" without commenting on the accuracy of the claims, the media often manage to distort the facts, even though that is not what they think of themselves as aiming to do. The direction in which they distort the facts is effected by the second and third themes. The second theme is that the process of production is none of the public's business. The point of view that the media adopt is one of a consumer uninterested in how a product or service is produced and only interested in acquiring it as soon as possible for the lowest possible price. This theme eliminates work - you know, that activity that most of us spend most of our time doing -- from the acceptable topics for our public discourse. Third, the economy is driven by great business leaders and entrepreneurs. Because members of the media believe this, it makes sense for them to discuss a labor issue with a panel made up exclusively of owners and managers. This is "fair and balanced" if you have convinced yourself of these themes. Fourth, the workplace is a meritocracy and those who run into trouble have no one to blame but themselves. This thinking grants to all employers freedom from responsibility for how they treat workers. If they treat workers harshly, the workers deserved it. This must be so once you have accepted as an article of faith that the workplace is a meritocracy. Fifth, collective economic action is bad. Members of the media think they are fair to everyone by being fair to them as individuals. While collective action may benefit many individuals, our shapers of opinion have determined that it is unacceptable and convinced themselves that it causes inflation or disrupts consume