messaging

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the impact that the decline in media coverage of state issues poses for progressive advocates. A new study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism sheds additional light on those challenges.

Pew found that 61 percent of the 259 newspaper it surveyed had decreased the amount of physical space available for news stories over the last three years. To accommodate the smaller newshole, papers generally reduced their coverage of foreign affairs, national news, business, and the arts. The mix of coverage also shifted heavily towards "ultra-local" topics.

Additionally, Pew found that many newspapers have reduced staffing over the past three years. Remaining staff members are being asked not only to cover an increasing number of topics, but also to cover those topics in a wider array of formats. This is because papers now need to feed both print and online platforms.

At least two lessons relevant to progressive state advocates can be drawn from the Pew study. First, the shift towards "ultra-local" coverage means that the stories most apt to attract attention are those that can be linked directly to particular communities and local issues. Second, the move to "converge" the printed and online versions of the papers means that stories that lend themselves to a rich multi-media presentation are more apt to get coverage.

Last week, advocates from eastern North Carolina rallied at the state legislative building to promote a bill that would create a “Poverty Reduction and Economic Recovery Legislative Study Commission." As part of the day’s activities, advocates hosted a poverty forum. Although every speaker was passionate about the issue, their collective remarks raised serious questions about the effectiveness of a poverty frame for a task force.

Every forum speaker articulated a fairly orthodox view of poverty: how it is an outrage that so many people have so little in a state that has grown so rich; how poverty can be reduced through the use of proven policies; and how the major obstacle to progress is misplaced public and political priorities. The key to vanquishing poverty, then, is a sustained, focused effort. Yet what if that message actually sets the stage for debates and policies that actually run counter to the stated goal of poverty alleviation?

The unstated assumption running through the forum was that the poor are somehow different from other people and are in need of charity. To make the charity theme even clearer, every speaker specifically referenced Matthew 25: 31-46, the Gospel passage describing the corporal works of mercy. Such a personalized view of poverty and poverty alleviation soon turned into a discussion of what is “wrong” with the poor and how they need to work more, even though multiple studies show that most poor individuals in North Carolina work. Missing from the discussion was any critique of a labor market characterized by an overabundance of low-wage, low-quality jobs. Put differently, the forum’s guiding assumptions effectively precluded any discussion of structural problems or questions of political economy.

Furthermore, the poverty frame defined the scope of the economic problems facing Tar Heel families too narrowly by effectively writing low-income families that earn too much to be officially “poor” but too little to be secure out of the scene. Yet the share of North Carolinians with incomes between 100 and 200 percent of the poverty level is much greater than the share falling below the poverty threshold. What about these individuals?

Perhaps most disturbingly, the poverty frame limited the discussion of progressive solutions. Although the EITC received a brief mention, the offered solutions included business incentives, entrepreneurship training, and – yes – prison construction as a jobs strategy for distressed rural communities. The minimum wage, unionization, workplace standards, health insurance, subsidized child care – all of these tools essentially went unmentioned. What made this ironic was that on the same day the state’s Democratically-controlled Senate passed a budget that would cut the legs out from under the state’s SCHIP program. Might access to health insurance have something to do with poverty?

In all probability, the bill under consideration will fail to advance, but even if it does, it likely would have little impact because the debate already had been set up in unproductive terms. The probable result would be inaction at best, harmful policies at worst.

In recent years, progressives have devoted considerable attention to a consideration of how best to communicate their values, issues and policies. This process generally has focused on questions of substance, messaging and framing, such as how to communicate about poverty. Yet these discussions often overlook a communications-related development particularly relevant to state advocates; namely, the disappearance of state-level media outlets capable of covering policy issues. After all, what good is a well-honed message if there are few effective channels for spreading the word?

At its core, this is a question about daily newspapers, as local broadcast outlets long ago stopped covering all but the most sensational state issues. And there is no doubt that daily newspapers have experienced intense pressures in recent years. While national newspapers have struggled (see, for instance, a recent Atlantic Monthly article about The Wall Street Journal and Rupert “Fair and Balanced” Murdoch), state papers have been pummeled. Yesterday, for instance, the McClatchy Company, which owns 30 daily newspapers in such large cities and state capitals as Miami, Fort Worth, Charlotte, Raleigh, Sacramento and Columbia, S.C. announced a major round of layoffs.

In response to financial pressures, state newspapers have eliminated beats, reduced coverage of state issues (especially the "dull but important" ones like budgeting), eliminated locally-produced copy in favor of wire service report and have lost the ability to connect local issues to larger national trends – a problem especially acute for economic reporting. Moreover, many papers have reduced the amount of space in the opinion pages for submissions focused on state issues. In North Carolina only two of the state’s five large dailies regularly accept op-ed contributions related to statewide issues.

The decline in state-level outlets able to cover state issues is a serious problem for progressive advocates. To be effective, progressives need to reach decision makers, influential citizens and opinion leaders – the kinds of people still apt to get their news from daily papers. Although new media outlets like blogs contain tremendous potential, the fact that the most active voters and political leaders skew to the older end of the age distribution may limit the effectiveness of on-line mechanisms. It is unlikely, for instance, that the typical North Carolina legislator (average age of 59) is opting for You Tube or Twitter over the morning paper.

While the communications and messaging work is important for progressives, the discussion can’t be limited just to content and instead needs to focus on distribution channels. Otherwise, the only people who hear well-crafted and well-tailored progressive messages will be progressives themselves.

Todd's insightful post made me recall some things I've read about public opinion, politics and inequality. Like they do about conflict and resentment-based messages, the "experts" say that inequality has no affect on politics, because Americans don't care about it. This is no coincidence, because conflict and resentment goes hand in hand with relative inequality. Yet, as one might suspect in a highly unequal nation, political polarization- a measure of conflict- has grown in step with the rise in inequality. Resentment over inequality exists in high proportions, too. Substantial evidence shows that Americans disapprove of growing inequality, and that opposition tends to grow as different types of inequality expand. Lane Kenworthy has also written up an international public opinion study that shows that our preference for low levels of inequality is right up there with a lot of highly egalitarian European countries. Apparently, we have more in common with those latte-sipping socialists in France than mainstream media and political elites want us to think.

A message that incorporates both "aspirational" and "downtrodden" politics could be very potent, I think. But according to an unpublished paper I recently read, we all really need to do a better job articulating just how to address inequality- the public thinks that education is the solution, but as many a progressive policy wonk will tell you, it'll only get us part of the way there. And it strikes me as unfair that these two messages are framed as mutually exclusive. They're both needed because they target different audiences. It would serve the progressive cause well to take inequality as seriously as we do "aspirational" politics and test the best way to message it.

That said, I have deep misgivings about a populism that damages our sense of national solidarity, the feeling that presidents from Roosevelt to Kennedy have invoked to unite the country around common aspirations and grievances (Todd doesn't say this. I'm generalizing.). It's easy to get carried away driving people apart and not do enough bringing people together- too much condemnation, not enough compassion. This is just a challenge to overcome, though.

Shawn and Matt raise some good points about the need for a more compelling progressive economic narrative. Before venturing into a discussion of messaging, it would be beneficial to reflect upon contextual factors that may shape the reception of any economic narrative, especially on the state and local levels. Four factors in particular are worthy of consideration:

1) Limited popular understanding of economics
Not only is economics often poorly taught in schools, but there also are few outlets that help adults develop economic literacy. The business sections of daily newspapers, for instance, generally confine themselves to the stock market and corporate affairs. Limited knowledge, in turn, leads a surprising number of people to fail to perceive issues like labor market policy as actually being about economics.

2) A barrier of fear
In communities negatively impacted by economic change, fear often forms a barrier to change. In my home state of North Carolina, for example, some of the greatest resistance to raising the minimum wage came from communities with high concentrations of low-wage work. Many of these communities have proved willing to accept the argument that a higher minimum wage will destroy jobs and leave people worse off.

3) A cultivated sense of helplessness
Many individuals, even those with some economic literacy, too often view the economy as a natural force that is beyond the ability of anyone to manage or control. Conservatives have worked to cultivate this mindset, which fosters a sense of helplessness.

4) Unintended consequences
In a state like North Carolina, discussions framed in terms of job quality often open the door to positive discussions of economic affairs. The problem comes when people draw the wrong conclusions. For example, people may understand that the growth of low-wage work is a problem, but the conclusion that too often is drawn is that immigrants, not policy choices or structural factors, are to blame.