The Ferenka dispute: "Yes,but ..."

"The 'Yes, but' style of reporting concedes the right to strike but makes explicit propaganda against the exercising of the right." Gene Kerrigan analyses newspaper coverage of the Ferenka dispute.

NEWSPAPER editors, like most other sensible people, recognise the right of workers to withdraw their labour. Howwever, going on strike is something else again. The Irish Times, in an editorial on September 17, put it in a nutshell:

"Freedom to picket is one thing, but ... "

What we could call the "Yes, but" approach is the overall stance of the national dailies in relation to industrial disputes. Before taking a closer look at this approach we can" note two other, less frequently used, styles. .

The rarer of these is the "human interest" approach. From time to time an editor, exposed perhaps to too many episodes of "The W altons" and suffering from a dose of the J ohnboys, will send a journalist out to capture ·all the human lifB that is there behind the strike headdlines. These abberations don't last long, the reason being that the journalists who best cover that type of story are those, like Nell McCafferty, whose symmpathy with the underdog is all too apparent. McCafferty's foray into this field, with a number of Irish Times artiicles with a sympathetic, pro-striker bias, sank below the waves of sea, sun and nipples a la Binchy.

Far more common is the "Damn cheek of the bowsies" approach. This is the traditional striker-bashing story which is aimed at prejudicing readers against a particular strike. Depending on circumstances, strikers can be portrayed as anything between bad mannered and subhuman. My favourite example of this emerged from the Irish Independent during the 1972 Brittain's strike. Two developments, a scuffle on the picket line and a decision to escalate the.strike, were telescoped into the one sentence so that "a gate man was knocked unconnscious yesterday during scuffles as dissmissed workers took a more militant line." That's the spirit which, in the late sixties reported in the same breath that Ireland had seen an increase in the inciidence of both Maoism andV.D.

Out of such straws are the brickbats fashioned. "People suffer as coal dispute goes on and on. " It would be possible to fill the whole of this magazine without exhausting the supply of loaded headdlines and biased sub-editing.

But there is another, less subtle, form of strike-bashing which comes into this category. It's the agonised editorial, full of civic concern, and it's best practised by the Irish Times. "A Ruthless Strike". "Intransigence." You get the picture from the headings. The subject is usuually an isolated or unpopular strike and the substance of the editorials .never differ. There is always a demand, put with an almost audible sniff, that this
distasteful business be "resolved", and the overwhelming impression is that the . right to strike is a good thing-as long as it is not exercised.

"The strike will benefit no one. It is difficult to see any justification for this strike and tlie ruthless disregard of the suffering of the aged and decrepit. The Dublin public must feel indignant over the impetuous irresponsibility shown by the union. The traditional attitude to pickets in this country is one of holy Pand wholly illogical - reverence. A raddical solution may be the only solution. There is a limit to the amount of harm one section of the community can be permitted to impose not only on itself but on the community at large. The government must be expected to tone up its sense of urgency and trade unionnists to develop a wider awareness of their responsibilities. "

These lines come from four different editorials about four separate strikes. They illustrate a similarity of tone, a disregard for facts and an overbearing distaste for the sweat and friction taking place under the armpits of a supposedly classless society. You can cut up the paragraph, throw the lines in a hat, stick them down and insert the name of the next strike you want to have a go at. (Perhaps that's how they do it.) And all this delivered from the security of a well padded editorial seat onto the heads of workers who have taken a considered decision to undergo the rigours of a strike. It has less to do with fact or comment than class prejudice.

The "Yes but" style of reporting concedes the right to strike but makes explicit propaganda against the exercissing of the right. Anti-strike reporting is sometimes deliberate, more often it comes from a series of sincerely held prejudices. The effect in either case is the same. The beliefs which cause the prejudice are the dominant beliefs of society. These are that "we're all workkers now", that class conflict is an anachhronism, that anyway, we're all in the same boat and the stability of that boat, the "national interest", takes preceedence over any sectional aspirations.

You may not notice it, reading one paper at a time. But open a file of newssclippings exclusively concerned with strikes and you'll smother in an avallanche of perjorative verbs.

What intimidatory stance does a strike take?

It "threatens. "

What sometimes happens to a strike, by the grace of God and the Labour Court?

It is "averted".

But, without such divine intervenntion, what happens to hopes?

They are "dashed".

What then does the strike do? It "hits ".

And?

"Disrupts ".

And?

"Endangers ".

And?

"Places in jeopardy".

Workers will often try to spread a strike, to hit harder, to win sooner. This is reported as "Strike worsens." Objecctive? It is rare to find a strike reported in any fashion other than by using such prejudicial terms. An Irish Times headdline, February 2nd: "Salt mine settleement hopes dashed. " An accurate line would read, "Company reneges on agreement". Again, September 29th:

"Work disrupted". Why not give it a proper, accurate, headline, such as "Worker fights redundancy"?

Strikes are undeniably an expression of class conflicts. The presentation of industrial disputes as illogical and deestructive results from an attempt, connscious or not, to deny that they repreesent class conflict.

Of course it is possible that I am being biased in selecting examples. Let's check the analysis against the reporting of the Ferenka dispute over a period arbitrarily decided by a deadline: Sunday October 9 to Wednesday October 12.

The Sunday Press carries a lengthy article by Brian McLoughlin. It is ballanced in that it gives equal coverage to the contending forces. It quotes Frank Prendergast, Mayor of Limerick, and his appeal to the rebelling ITGWU members to go back to work. It doesn't mention that the Mayor's appeal could be seen in the light that he's also an ITGWU officcial.

The Sunday Independent carries a similar story but doesn't give any space for comment to the workers who have left the ITGWU.

Both stories have headlines which place the emphasis on the possible bad effects of the strike. Both emphasise the bewilderment of the Ferenka bosses. Neither give much emphasis to the fact that the strike was originated by Ferennka's suspending five shop stewards.

Strangely, the Press carries a second Ferenka story, headlined, "Go back to work says union". It consists of stateements from ITGWU officials on the need to end the strike. The Mayor is again quoted, again without reference to his other interest.

Monday 10

The Irish Press headline, "Danger of pollution in Ferenka row". The story is solely concerned with the "dangers" of the dispute and quotes John Carroll of the ITG WU to that effect. And of course the still impartial Mayor.

The Irish Times falls in with the trend: no statements from the workers. Quotes the Mayor. Otherwise a short, superficial resume of the dispute.

The Irish Independent doesn't bother.

Tuesday 11 .

The Press reports the arrival of Ferrenka "troubleshooters". Reprints McLaughlin's piece from the Sunday Press. The only substantial change is the insertion of a paragraph which stresses the fear of closure in the event of .furrther "disruptive unofficial action". No source quoted for this opinion.

The Irish Times prints a long backkground piece by Arthur Quinlan. It is based entirely on management's point of view and paints a picture of a harrrassed company confronted by illogical, disruptive, incomprehensible agitators. Says that the cause of the "trouble" is that the workers weren't "screened" during recruitment. Some "dissidents" were hired. Eugene McEldowney writes a corrective, "objective" piece as a counter balance to Quinlan's. Concludes that there is a "dilemma".

The independent carries a two collumn inch report.

The Evening Press, in a "return to work" piece, quotes the Mayor at length. Finally reveals his other interest in the dispute.

Wednesday 12

The Irish Press carries another report from McLaughlin. It is accurate, the headline matches the text, there is no emphasis on "dangers", merely a report

on the events. It is as objective as could be wished. Except for the Mayor. He's become a plain old "public representtative" again.

The Irish Times is disgraceful. It reeports In the opening paragraph that Ferenka workers have decided unannimously at a meeting to return to work. The meeting at which the "unanimous" decision was taken comprised less than 1/15th of the workforce. Inside the paper there is a "damn cheek" style editorial.

The F erenka dispute, unlike, say, a bus strike, did not lend itself to strikerrbashing. It was a complex dispute deemanding careful analysis if the reader .•. was not to be misled. It didn't get it.

The best report by Mclaughlin in the Irish Press on October 12, outshone the others merely by reporting .events withhout attempting to prejudice the reader by use of perjorative terms. Even this report did not explain why over 800 workers would rebel against their union leaders.

Other reports, particularly Quinlan's. contrived to give the impression of illogical pigheadedness on behalf of the workers. The circumstances by which the ITGWU originally got sole negottiating rights were not revealed. The strictures of the Ferenka agreement, though notorious, were not referred to .. Three separate articles included the comment that "lack of screening" to eliminate "dissidents" was the cause of the "trouble" and this comment was attributed to the Limerick ITGWU official, Vincent Moran. Yet, such an explosive statement was not explored or commented on in the light of well known facts. The newspapers cannot be unaware that there have been stoppages in Limerick in recent months by workers portesting against a widespread blacklist.

Defeat, for the Ferenka strikers, would not merely mean a return to what they considered an unsatisfactory status quo. It would mean for some of them the possibility of having to spend lengthy, perhaps infinite, periods on the dole, even of having to leave Limerick in order to find work. In the light of that, every headline which tagged the strike as illogical or destructive was not only inaccurate but was discriminatory against the workers.

There are journalists who attempt to be objective and sympathetic to strikers. They are swimming against the tide. The habitual use of loaded headlines, sensation-hunting sub-editing and, above all, the pretence that open class conflict as expressed through strikes is qualittatively different from the day to day relationship of worker and employer, ensures that strikes are presented in a fashion which begs that they be opposed.