商业主义的偏见与有组织劳工的公众存在

M. Stamm
{"title":"商业主义的偏见与有组织劳工的公众存在","authors":"M. Stamm","doi":"10.1177/1522637919898271","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Philip Glende’s “Labor Reporting and Its Critics in the CIO Years” offers a comprehensive and provocative history of labor reporting from the early 1930s to the early 1950s. It is deeply researched and encyclopedic in scope, and Glende explores the range of activities involved in the production, dissemination, and reception of labor reporting. At bottom, this is a history of the development and meaning of the body of reporting about the labor movement published by mostly northern newspapers in the mid-20th century. Its most important line of analysis interrogates whether this reporting was fair or not. Glende concludes that, on balance, it was not, and his explanations of why this pervasively unfair tone persisted are what makes this essay so rich and rewarding. Glende resists the easy explanation that this tone had to do with active opposition to labor from within the ranks of commercial daily newspapers. In keeping with Michael Schudson’s 1997 suggestion in Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly that scholars take care to avoid an “anticommercial bias” in writing with media history, Glende presents a novel argument about how mainstream journalism could be rightly perceived as unfair to labor. For Glende, the causality did not stem from the fact that publishers’ antipathy to organized labor, though certainly present, biased the news in any particular direction. Instead, Glende argues, we need to examine evolving practices of commercial news distribution and professional reporting to appreciate how “institutional forces” shaped the news. “Bias was not personal,” Glende asserts,","PeriodicalId":147592,"journal":{"name":"Journalism & Mass Communication Monographs","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Bias of Commercialism and the Public Presence of Organized Labor\",\"authors\":\"M. Stamm\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1522637919898271\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Philip Glende’s “Labor Reporting and Its Critics in the CIO Years” offers a comprehensive and provocative history of labor reporting from the early 1930s to the early 1950s. It is deeply researched and encyclopedic in scope, and Glende explores the range of activities involved in the production, dissemination, and reception of labor reporting. At bottom, this is a history of the development and meaning of the body of reporting about the labor movement published by mostly northern newspapers in the mid-20th century. Its most important line of analysis interrogates whether this reporting was fair or not. Glende concludes that, on balance, it was not, and his explanations of why this pervasively unfair tone persisted are what makes this essay so rich and rewarding. Glende resists the easy explanation that this tone had to do with active opposition to labor from within the ranks of commercial daily newspapers. In keeping with Michael Schudson’s 1997 suggestion in Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly that scholars take care to avoid an “anticommercial bias” in writing with media history, Glende presents a novel argument about how mainstream journalism could be rightly perceived as unfair to labor. For Glende, the causality did not stem from the fact that publishers’ antipathy to organized labor, though certainly present, biased the news in any particular direction. Instead, Glende argues, we need to examine evolving practices of commercial news distribution and professional reporting to appreciate how “institutional forces” shaped the news. “Bias was not personal,” Glende asserts,\",\"PeriodicalId\":147592,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journalism & Mass Communication Monographs\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-02-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journalism & Mass Communication Monographs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1522637919898271\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journalism & Mass Communication Monographs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1522637919898271","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

菲利普·格伦德(Philip Glende)的《CIO时代的劳动报告及其批评者》(Labor Reporting and Its Critics in the CIO Years)提供了从20世纪30年代初到50年代初的劳动报告的全面而富有争议的历史。它是深入研究和百科全书的范围,和格伦德探索的活动范围涉及生产,传播和接受劳动报告。从根本上说,这是一部关于20世纪中期主要由北方报纸发表的关于劳工运动的报道的发展和意义的历史。它最重要的分析路线是质疑这篇报道是否公平。格伦德的结论是,总的来说,事实并非如此,他解释了为什么这种普遍存在的不公平基调持续存在,这使得这篇文章如此丰富和有益。格伦德拒绝接受这样一个简单的解释,即这种语气与商业日报内部对劳工的积极反对有关。Michael Schudson在1997年的《新闻与大众传播季刊》(Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly)中建议,学者在撰写媒体历史时要小心避免“反商业偏见”。与此一致,Glende提出了一个新颖的论点,即主流新闻如何被正确地视为对劳工不公平。对格伦德来说,这种因果关系并非源于出版商对劳工组织的反感,尽管这种反感确实存在,但却使新闻偏向任何特定的方向。相反,格伦德认为,我们需要审视商业新闻发行和专业报道的不断演变的实践,以了解“制度力量”是如何塑造新闻的。“偏见不是针对个人的,”格伦德断言,
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Bias of Commercialism and the Public Presence of Organized Labor
Philip Glende’s “Labor Reporting and Its Critics in the CIO Years” offers a comprehensive and provocative history of labor reporting from the early 1930s to the early 1950s. It is deeply researched and encyclopedic in scope, and Glende explores the range of activities involved in the production, dissemination, and reception of labor reporting. At bottom, this is a history of the development and meaning of the body of reporting about the labor movement published by mostly northern newspapers in the mid-20th century. Its most important line of analysis interrogates whether this reporting was fair or not. Glende concludes that, on balance, it was not, and his explanations of why this pervasively unfair tone persisted are what makes this essay so rich and rewarding. Glende resists the easy explanation that this tone had to do with active opposition to labor from within the ranks of commercial daily newspapers. In keeping with Michael Schudson’s 1997 suggestion in Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly that scholars take care to avoid an “anticommercial bias” in writing with media history, Glende presents a novel argument about how mainstream journalism could be rightly perceived as unfair to labor. For Glende, the causality did not stem from the fact that publishers’ antipathy to organized labor, though certainly present, biased the news in any particular direction. Instead, Glende argues, we need to examine evolving practices of commercial news distribution and professional reporting to appreciate how “institutional forces” shaped the news. “Bias was not personal,” Glende asserts,
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信