Research: media coverage of the strike

[danf1]

Hi everyone, I'm a postgraduate sociology student and I am doing some research into the ongoing industrial conflict at Royal Mail. I am particuarly interested in how the media have covered the dispute and the experience of changing working practices and the strike from the point of view of the postal workers. I am going to be posting some topics so that people can start discussions on them. Any help that anyone can give me will be greatly recieved and any information that is passed to me will stay anonymous. If anyone has any questions regarding the research or would like to say anything else to me, please feel free to send me a PM. Thanks.

I would like to start a discussion on the way that the conflict has been reported in the press. Do you think that the coverage has been fair/balanced? If not why not and what do you think has been neglected? Or, what has there that has been positive about the coverage?

[Stormproof]

All I can say is Rupert Murdock........we all know who he sided with

[DirtyHarry]

We have no "free press" in Britain today. Too many newspapers owned by a few men. Men who have no liking for the ordinary working man/woman. Men who have a pathological hatred of ordinary working men and women who have the temerity to take the last resort, strike action. Evidence? The almost universal depiction in the national press of your postie being something akin to Jack The Ripper, and only a few weeks ago,too.

[danf1]

Do you think that the posties position regardeing the strike was given enough publicity? If not, do you think that this meant that the public didn't really understand what it was all about?

[DirtyHarry]

With the kind of "free press" we have in this country, owned by the kind of press barons this country has, how do representitives of ordinary working people achieve such publicity? The British people don't like fighting for their rights these days, oh, they like to moan, whinge a lot, but fighting is a big no-no, and the British people seem to have a perverse dislike of their countrymen who do have a bit more fight in them, because they themselves lack the same resolve.

You're young, you won't really understand what I'm talking about, but careful study of modern British history, especially the period 1979-to the present day, should provide a lot of the answers.

[Yahoorsur]

In my opinion the union didnt get its case over particulary well,it seemed as though there were many different issues (all important) competing for attention,in my own case it was excessive workload and bullying and harrasment that drove me,in other areas it was absorption.The union should have been putting ads in the national papers all through he strike dates and the local newspapers could have been used,they would have bitten off the unions hand in order to get paid advertising.
The comments section of the various forums on local and national newspapers provided a chance to broadcast the union case,the blogosphere was one that could have been used a lot better,putting the viral e mail from the front of this site,onto the comments section was well worth it(even if to just piss the right wingnuts off)
As was pointed out many times on here, we are the CWU,and we should be communicating a lot better.
The television,BBC,ITV and SKY were fairly sympathetic in my view,if only to promote an anti-govt line.
This site was resposible in my view for unifying and informing the posties up and down the country,who then disseminated the info found on here and sent it on to their friends,who were on other social media.

[danf1]

Dirty Harry,

do you think then that the coverage of this dispute is similar to past disputes? Do you think it is part of a broader agenda in the media?

[danf1]

How does anyone think the Royal Mail management were treated in the press compared to the posties and the union?

[Pat Ostman]

How does anyone think the Royal Mail management were treated in the press compared to the posties and the union?

In my opinion the press made out that this was about money and 'working conditions' (ie having to do more work). Of course this did not go down well with the public during a recession. It seemed like the poor management wanted to modernise (read save money at the expense of customer satisfaction) and we stood in their way. It was not true and a payrise was not the reason for any strikes and not part of the problem.

The truth is that the strike was about saving the service before Royal Mail Management destroy it. The higher echelons are using a slash and burn policy to get us ready for privatisation. If the public knew the truth they would have almost been unanimously behind us, sadly though the media got to them first and our union was not exactly helpful putting our point across.

In fact the best press we got was when postmen and women were interviewed on the tv and radio. Sadly in the media's quest to 'never let the truth get in the way of a good story' meant this rarely happened.

[danf1]

If the public knew the truth they would have almost been unanimously behind us, sadly though the media got to them first and our union was not exactly helpful putting our point across.

What kind of reaction did you get from the public out and about on rounds?

[Pat Ostman]

If the public knew the truth they would have almost been unanimously behind us, sadly though the media got to them first and our union was not exactly helpful putting our point across.

What kind of reaction did you get from the public out and about on rounds?

I did not get any negative comments to be fair and a couple of positive ones but I would not call it indicative of public opinion. Not enough commented really, problem is most people are at work when we get on delivery nowadays. Also it's an argument starter so the ones that did not agree would probably shy away from a confrontation.

[DirtyHarry]

Dirty Harry,

do you think then that the coverage of this dispute is similar to past disputes? Do you think it is part of a broader agenda in the media?

Yes. The universal dislike of any body of workers who take the last resort, striking, by the British press, has been a common factor in disputes for the past 30 years or so, no different today than it was in 1980.
The agenda held by the British media is barely disguised, the British press, owned by people such as Rupert Murdoch, is determined to keep a foot on the neck of the British worker, determined to see the clock turned back 75 years or more, so the British worker has no rights in their workplace other than those the British employer sees fit to grant.
I loved my job once, I actually used to like going into work, but that was in the past, a past the British press never misses an opportunity to condemn. But, hey, I suppose it's all part and parcel of being modernised, as Royal Mail bosses, know-nothing politicians, and a British press seemingly in their pockets, like to call it.
I remember the time Murdoch destroyed the print unions in Fleet Street, and young as I was, I knew then we'd never see a truly free press in Britain, I knew then that the British press would be nothing more than a vehicle for people like Murdoch to impress upon the British people they're own view as to what is good for the British people. Unfortunately, what seems good to a billionaire media magnet like Murdoch, is in actual fact, a million miles away from what is really good for the majority of British people.

[danf1]

I did not get any negative comments to be fair and a couple of positive ones but I would not call it indicative of public opinion. Not enough commented really, problem is most people are at work when we get on delivery nowadays. Also it's an argument starter so the ones that did not agree would probably shy away from a confrontation.

What about on this forum, has there been many negative comments on here?

[danf1]

I loved my job once, I actually used to like going into work, but that was in the past, a past the British press never misses an opportunity to condemn. But, hey, I suppose it's all part and parcel of being modernised, as Royal Mail bosses, know-nothing politicians, and a British press seemingly in their pockets, like to call it.

What has changed about the job to mean that you don't love it anymore? What does modernisation mean for posties?

[Pat Ostman]

I did not get any negative comments to be fair and a couple of positive ones but I would not call it indicative of public opinion. Not enough commented really, problem is most people are at work when we get on delivery nowadays. Also it's an argument starter so the ones that did not agree would probably shy away from a confrontation.

What about on this forum, has there been many negative comments on here?

More so because of the anonymity of the internet, they were people quite rightly upset about the strikes and their loss of service. All we could do was to remind them how bad the service is becoming and our desire to make a stand. If you look back only ten years you would see how bad Royal Mail has become because of post office closures and later starts. We are now at the point where the service can no longer sustain any more of these cuts and the cracks have been obvious for sometime.

Most of the customers complains that come through nowadays are mostly little to do with the postpeople concerned, they are directly related to Royal Mail's idea of modernisation.