Study Criticizes Top-Down Coverage Of Living Wage Debate

Amid reports about Wal-Mart's renewed effort to move back into Chicago, editorial boards and local media figures resorted to a familiar refrain: that people in low-income communities should simply be grateful for any new jobs.  Ald. Howard Brookins Jr. (21st Ward) has also pushed the argument that Wal-Mart's poverty wages are perfectly sufficient, despite the fact that he is one of several aldermen who refused to take unpaid furlough days from his $110,000 (part-time) job, claiming at the time: "I can't afford it." The hypocrisy is staggering.  But don't hold your breath waiting for the local media call him out on it.

Just as the debate resumes over whether to allow Wal-Mart to expand in the city, the Grassroots Collaborative has released an analysis (PDF) of newspaper coverage during the thick of the historic big box living wage fight back in 2006.  They found that the coverage largely excluded the perspective of  people directly impacted by a potential Wal-Mart expansion: politicians and business leaders made up 75 percent of the 380 quotes identified in the study, while community groups and residents had only a 6 percent say.  More from the report:

The most frequent frames to characterize the Living Wage debate focused on its potential negative effects. Other common frames discussed the ordinance as a political power-play between city and labor leaders. These frames would leave readers with the impression that the living wage was an idea manufactured and pushed exclusively by union leaders, unsupported by or unimportant to ordinary working people and met with unified predictions of economic doom from the business community and city officials.

As we've pointed out before, the living wage fight isn't is about families' financial security and good public policy. One advocate opposed to Wal-Mart's race to the bottom is the Illinois Hunger Coalition's Diane Doherty. "Too many of our people who are working are hungry," she told us earlier this fall. And as more working-poor people are tipped into government programs, such as food stamps (where enrollment continues to surge) or Medidcaid, taxpayers end up subsidizing Wal-Mart's stinginess.

The report goes on to point out: "A reasonable standard of accuracy also requires that journalists try to report the most important costs and benefits of the policy to advocates, opponents, policy makers and those affected."  Let's hope that local mainstream journalists see this an instructive critique.

Full disclosure: The Grassroots Collaborative includes to SEIU Local 73 and SEIU Healthcare Illinois Indiana.  Progress Illinois is sponsored by the SEIU Illinois State Council.

Comments

To say that the public has been left out of the Walmart debate is simply not true, as poll after poll - including one conducted by the Chicago Tribune , show that an overwhelming majority of people who live on the South Side of Chicago support a South Side Walmart to the tunes of almost 80%!!

And although the hypocrisy is quite staggering that Progress Illinois, the SEIU-funded news blog, is advocating for more 'fair' journalism, it should also be noted that the Grassroots Collaborative-- the group behind this unscientific study-- is a coalition of the SEIU and new & improved ACORN.

First of all, the polls conducted earlier in the year by both Wal-Mart and the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce (whom I believe you're affiliated with) were a joke, as the Tribune's Eric Zorn detailed:

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2009/07/advice-dee...

Second, the Tribune poll you reference (from late August) only received coverage on the editorial page.  As far as we can tell, the paper itself never devoted an article to it, let alone released the actual survey.  Without knowing how the questions were framed, it's impossible to judge the results. 

Finally, you're right to point out SEIU's involvement with the Grassroots Collaborative.  We added a disclosure at the bottom of the article.

thanks for the update.

We're talking about three separate polls conducted by separate entities here that all basically reflect the same results. Zorn is a columnist who criticized the walmart & chamber polls - and that is his right as an opionon-writer. The Chamber poll was never reported to be "a joke" - Quite the opposite, take Crain's for an example:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=34928

And the Walmart-commissioned poll, while criticized by Zorn, mirrored those same results: 73%+ support for the south side store. And, re- the Trib poll, just because the Tribune didn't issue a full report on their poll, you think the results should be disregarded? Throwing the baby out with the bath water, hmm?

Indeed, when asked it is easy to say you support jobs coming to any community, especially those who are most affected from difficult economic times. But I think if we had a poll that said "Would you prefer jobs that provided living wages, paid sick leave and health benefits or would you prefer jobs that paid a minimum wage, requiring workers to turn to social service agencies for assistance for their food and medical needs?" we would see clear results that point to allowing Wal-Mart into a community with some concessions that really benefit those residents and workers. This idea that certain communities should settle for the worse-case scenario because they are poor is insulting.

I applaud Labor and community activists for standing up and demanding better from a multi-billion dollar corporation who is certainly going to profit off of maintaining poverty for those who they (Wal-Mart) believe do not deserve better.

Thanks for your thoughts, Beth.  It's also worth noting that 16,000 voters in (select precincts) in 21 Chicago wards were asked the following question on the Nov. 2006 ballot: "Shall the Chicago City Council enact the 'Chicago Big Box Living Wage Ordinance' requiring all newly constructed retail establishments in Chicago, greater than 75,000 square feet, to pay a minimum 'living wage' of at least $10.00 per hour plus $3.00 per hour towards employee health benefits?"

Eighty percent voted yes, including 78 percent in a precinct in Brookins' 21st Ward.

It'd be nice if the Tribune would include a similar question in their future polls on the issue.

That same question was also asked in select precincts on the ballot in the February 2007 elections. Especially in some precincts where the aldermanic incumbents had switched their vote after mayor Daley's veto. I believe though, those Aldermen where never held accountable for the fact that up to 80% of their constituents voted in favor of a living wage. The media may very well have been biased but isn't that expected, there are huge monetary interests involved here. We really needed a study to know this?

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Progress Illinois' intention is to foster community and to maintain a comfortable and constructive blogging environment. While we encourage and appreciates different points of view, we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.

Discussion on this site is moderated. All comments submitted will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.

We will not publish comments that we consider:

  • off-topic
  • long-winded or containing excessive text from another source
  • inflammatory
  • commercial promotion

Please leave a name or nickname when commenting, as it makes it easier for others to respond directly.