This interview is reposted from Truthout.

Barbara Ehrenreich (Photo: David Shankbone / Flickr)
Best-selling author Barbara Ehrenreich – probably best known for her 2001 book “Nickel and Dimed” – has long been on the forefront of promoting stories about working people in an often hostile media environment. Recently, she has been heading the Economic Hardship Reporting Project. An endeavor inspired in part by the Federal Writers Project of the 1930s, the initiative aims “to force this country’s crisis of poverty and economic insecurity to the center of the national conversation.”
I spoke with Ehrenreich about this crisis of economic insecurity, about the invisibility of working people in the mainstream media, and about the current state of journalism.
That working people are chronically underrepresented in the media – even in times of economic downturn – is a sad reality readily apparent to anyone who has surveyed the American news landscape. Given this, I asked Ehrenreich if she thought this problem has been a constant, or if has it gotten worse in recent years.
“It’s always been something of a problem,” she said, “for two reasons. The first reason I discovered in my years as a freelance writer in the 1980s and 90s. That is: magazines and newspapers want to please their advertisers. Their advertisers want to think they are reaching wealthy people, people who will buy the products. They don’t want really depressing articles about misery and hardship near their ads.”
“The other reason is that typically the gatekeepers in these media outlets, the top editors and producers, have been from a social class quite far removed from what we are talking about. They have no clue. I found that this could be very, very dispiriting.”
“I remember pitching a story to an editor in the 1980s. It had something to do with working-class men. The editor said, ‘Well, can they talk?’”
“It’s almost otherworldly,” Ehrenreich continued. “The editors would use the word ‘articulate,’ as in, ‘Could you find someone articulate?’ Like the rest of the people are just going around grunting. Those are two long-standing structural forces against good coverage in the media.”
Next, I asked Ehrenreich about the power of telling individuals’ stories and how she approached storytelling in her work. The question produced an unexpected exchange.
“I actually don’t focus on storytelling,” Ehrenreich answered. “I’ve heard that said about my work before, but I don’t know where that comes from …”
I contended that “Nickel and Dimed,” which told of her time working a number of low-wage jobs in the service sector, clearly had a lot to do with relating the stories of her co-workers.
“It’s about me, though,” Ehrenreich responded. “It’s a story about me; first person. I was not in a position to really tell people’s stories. I could just describe the work.”
She continued: “My feeling about the coverage of poverty is that we have had a lot of stories. There’s the story of a hard-working, good person or family, ground down to nothing. We all quietly read and say, ‘Oh yes, gee, this is terrible; these nice decent people.’ Well, I don’t think that’s enough anymore. I don’t think that does the trick. I want stories that really make you indignant.”
“One of the things that I focus on is how easy it is now to get into serious trouble with the law because you don’t have much money – and then to get poorer and poorer because you get in serious trouble with the law. The classic example would be if you have a broken headlight on your car, but you can’t fix it because that would cost over $100. So you get stopped by the police, and you get a fine of maybe $100 or $200. If you could have paid that, you could have fixed the damn light! Now you have this debt to the government. If you don’t pay that, you begin to be in really big trouble that just builds and builds. More fines and fees are added, and they will all accumulate interest too. At some point, if you haven’t paid, you are very likely to have a warrant out for your arrest.”
Playing devil’s advocate, I suggested that many people would respond to a story like that by saying they’re not sympathetic, because the person broke the law.
“That’s something that we’re coming up against,” Ehrenreich said. “Do we always have to be worried that when we present somebody who’s economically struggling that there’s going to be the same response? I’ve been around the country talking about people in poverty and there will be somebody in the audience that says, ‘Well, do they smoke cigarettes?’ People can be very good at finding out how poor people could improve their [own] lives, instead of looking at something like wage theft, where employers are stealing billions of dollars every year.”
I asked about what influence unions could have on the coverage of working people, and about the role of labor media – citing examples such as the Newspaper Guild, the St. Paul Union Advocate and the Milwaukee Labor Press.
“I think that the union-created media is not very prominent,” Ehrenreich responded. “There is no union media that is reaching out beyond its members, right now – or very little. People in the labor movement always talk about having radio shows and channels and so on, and it doesn’t happen. I don’t know what’s up with that.”
“Certainly, it’s confusing when you’re a writer. There are so many outlets now, but you don’t get paid. I’ve had the experience in the last two months of having something go really viral on those sorts of outlets, including some very mainstream places. If reporters could afford to do the work, there are readers waiting to get to them.”
“We’re at a point now where that mainstream media is in a state of collapse,” she noted. “It’s just not there. The Times-Picayune in New Orleans is down to three newspaper reporters. The kind of reporters who might have been doing reporting on economic hardship in 1995 for major newspapers are long gone, eliminated.”
Exploring the issue of lack of pay for writers, I asked Ehrenreich to talk about the Economic Hardship Reporting Project she has started.
“There’s a big problem now: you can’t get paid if you’re a writer. A lot of stories aren’t being told; a lot of work isn’t being done; because the people who would like to do it can’t work for free.”
“I started the Economic Hardship Reporting Project back in 2009,” she continued. “I was very frustrated by the coverage of the recession in the mainstream press. What coverage there was focused on things like people who had to cut back on their personal trainers. It was hardship for the wealthy. I contacted The New York Times and said, ‘I would like to do a series of essays on the effect of the recession on those people who are already struggling.’ I got a contract. I did a series of four pieces, which were well displayed in the Sunday newspapers. But I realized in the course of it that I was not really being paid enough even to cover my expenses.”
“I was at the same time watching my son, who was also a freelance writer, trying to get paid enough to do the kind of work he wanted to do. He would be doing something for The Nation about tent cities for a couple hundred dollars. And he was saying, ‘I can’t do this; I just can’t do it.’ Those were the personal experiences that led to the idea of raising money to pay journalists to do innovative coverage of the issues related to poverty and economic inequality and hardship.”
I asked how people could get connected with the project.
“They’re going to read this interview and then they’re going to come lining up at my door,” Ehrenreich joked.
Continuing, she explained, “At first we had to sort of beat the bushes for writers. Now more people are coming to us, including some very good, experienced writers. We’re looking for journalists who have ideas, who are interested in subjects we’re interested in. And we really nurture them. Some are highly skilled and don’t really need that much from us. But we typically help a writer develop a pitch, then we spend a lot of time with them discussing a research plan. When they have a draft we do a first edit before it goes out. With one of our writers, I was afraid we were driving her crazy with our demands for rewrites and new information. I kindly said, ‘Look, you’re getting a free journalism-school education from us. You’re getting the kind of help you will never get again.”
“I gave the commencement speech in 2009 at the Berkeley Journalism School. The dean told me, ‘Don’t be gloomy.’ I thought about that challenge and I said to the students, ‘I was told not to be gloomy. But I can say, you have great talents which no one is going to want to pay for. You have all this energy and talent, and you’re going to get jerked around by employers. You’re going to have a really rough time.’ Then I said, ‘Welcome to the American working class.’
“Basically, in the old times, journalism was a working class occupation. For a little period there, journalists were kind of elite. That’s just been taken away from us. No more of those nice lunches in Manhattan with your editor, and things like that.”
“I told the students, ‘This is not a career. This is a fight.’”



14 Comments

Thank you, Amy, for posting this at FDL.
Recommended to the serious attention and concentrated consideration of everyone at FDL.
DW
The owning class has worked very hard to get US citizens to identify with them instead of each other or, much less, those “below” them on the socioeconomic ladder. This propaganda has worked for the most part. When was the last time you saw a working class protagonist in a movie? We’ve probably all seen the research that indicates that the vast majority of citizens think they are middle class. And remember when sports fans primarily identified with the players (as evidenced by collecting their trading cards)? Now instead the activity is fantasy leagues were fans identify with the owners.
To be fair, as the US has switched from being a manufacturing-based economy to a finance-based one, who would want to identify with a class that, generally speaking, no longer makes anything?
“In America everybody is of the opinion that he has no social superiors, since all men are equal, but he does not admit that he has no social inferiors, for, from the time of Jefferson onward, the doctrine that all men are equal applies only upwards, not downwards.” –Bertrand Russell
No wonder then, we live in an undemocratic comprador nation. Tom Paine turns in his grave.
I don’t know if there is currently in the US any chance for the classic worker-owner symbiotic relationship since the workers have been thrown overboard by the myopic, sociopathic greed of the owners who have come to imagine that we are not all in this thing together. The stunning success that the owners have had in getting US citizens, even the working class, to identify with them is a very tough knot to untie. And, because I don’t imagine most folks are going to turn off their cherished propaganda boxes, perhaps the only chance of a paradigm shift is for the US to go broke fighting wars, the historical graveyard of empires who stop making things. It’s a shitty thing to contemplate.
If there is any collective political action to be ha worth a damn, it is for a critical mass of citizens to stop needing the owners as they have stopped needing the workers.
““The other reason is that typically the gatekeepers in these media outlets, the top editors and producers, have been from a social class quite far removed from what we are talking about. They have no clue. I found that this could be very, very dispiriting.””
And yet:
“”There’s the story of a hard-working, good person or family, ground down to nothing. We all quietly read and say, ‘Oh yes, gee, this is terrible; these nice decent people.’ Well, I don’t think that’s enough anymore. I don’t think that does the trick. I want stories that really make you indignant.””
I guess it is not only the “gatekeepers” who “have no clue” about how “the other half” lives.
A conclusion might then be that it is not those at the top of the food chain after all–who are a minority, of course. Instead, there is a responsibility that must lie with a critical mass of the middle class. A critical mass that surely has at least the same amount of power, in quantitative terms anyway, as the “deciders.” Middle class of the world unite. You have nothing to loose but your socioeconomic insecurities. (Hint: The owners you defer to don’t feel the same way about you.)
Dean, I usually enjoy Ehrenreich. Many thanks for the insights what could not be got elsewhere!
I think the propaganda phase is over and it’s harvest time. The comprador liars are peddling their shit and/or too scared to commiserate on how stupid they’ve been. How many of them are just basically cruel people and will go on to the bitter end is hard to say. Surely there are many now just trapped.
Barring their ejection, the only way to reach most of those is with alternatives like Alperovitz’s. It’s my very limited understanding that the people getting their propaganda from TV is declining; mostly people are just ignoring the political realities, given economic pressures, the complexity of issues, the disinformation. and their inculcated stupefaction. So maybe opportunities there.
It is a critical question: to what extent do the “owners” need the citizens? Whether a lot or a little would affect strategy and motivation and should break their “apathy”.
“I think the propaganda phase is over and it’s harvest time.”
Quite likely. A good way to put it.
“The comprador liars are peddling their shit and/or too scared to commiserate on how stupid they’ve been.” and “the bitter end.”
You may know this from some of my other posts, but I am a hunter. In order to be any good at it, you have to study other species as subjectively as you can. What I have found is that any species will exploit their environment to the limit, if left unchecked, even to their own demise. I don’t see that human beings are any different than any other species in this regard.
“So maybe opportunities there.”
When I was a kid, I used to read a lot of Vonnegut. Then I got away from him because I thought his morality too Christian. But still there is one thing that he had to say that I can’t shake–and for good reason, I think. I’m paraphrasing here but his advice was that the purpose of life is to help each other get through it, no matter what it means. To me, that seems like a goal that is achievable for anyone anywhere. It may sound naive, but I think it trumps propaganda.
” . . . to what extent do the “owners” need the citizens?”
Indeed. That, my friend, is the question of our day.
Great discussion, Ludwig and ottogrendel …
In fact, I recommend this discussion to the FDL community … in the hopes that it will further more … discussion.
And, ultimately, considered and courageous action.
DW
I just got done listening to The Daily Circuit on MPR, with Minnesota’s own queen of useful idiocy Kerri Miller.
She hosted the segment called “Can America recover from The Great Recession?”
Subtitle; Rebuilding-Americas-Wealth.
Her two guests were pushing the creation of what they called “American Stakeholder Accounts”, intended to instill the habit of thrift in America’s young, because, as should be obvious to any ‘serious person’ the problem with the American economy is the average persons lack of interest in saving for the future.
Now I won’t argue with the fact that having a savings account set up to save for college education is a nice thought, what I will argue with is the way Kerri Miller treated her call-in guest who tried to expand the conversation to take into account the roots of our economic malaise.
The man explained that he was 56 years old and had taken quite a hit in the recent collapse, He mentioned in a short and concise comment that the coerced rise of the ‘ownership society’ through 401K plans, coupled with the extinction of traditional pension plan, coupled with the economic downturn, left his future much more uncertain than his friend in the Netherlands who had a guaranteed pension.
Ms Miller interrupted the man forcefully at the first hint of distraction from her ‘approved storyline’ and continued to interrupt him with a barely concealed contempt for his nerve in pointing out any element of the bigger picture.
She treated this call-in guest as if he were a tin-foil hat wearing crack-pot, all the while reinforcing the illusion that her studio guests from New America Foundation were making a ‘serious’ contribution to the economic issues facing the American people.
I can barely describe my disgust with MPR and its host for disguising this fluff piece as a serious discussion of solutions to the loss of Middle-Class Wealth, and the poor treatment of the caller who had the temerity to actually talk about the roots of the problem.
The show was called Can America recover from The Great Recession?
after all.
The caller who was treated so badly was the only person talking seriously about the effects of the ‘Great Recession’, and he was treated to the Bum’s-Rush for his efforts.
America’s working class is consistently invited to STFU in deference to their ‘betters’ and this process has become a virtually seamless wet-blanket thrown over any and all attempts to counter the propaganda machines control of our national discourse.
I was thinking about this just the other day, so you read my mind. Thank you for sharing!
PS;
The caller also lamented the decline of organized labor as a contributing factor, which words earned him another forcefull interuption.
And of course he got the condescending ‘thank you for your comments’ before being disconnected.
That’s one calloused beautiful mind.
You nailed it, Watt4Bob.
MAH