CNN Anchor's Smug Pot Shot At Striking Seattle Teachers Shows How Unions Are Casually Demonized in US Media
Employing a warmed-over, cynical strike-breaking tactic, Brianna Keilar implies striking teachers are harming children’s mental and educational well-being.
It’s a brief example but one I thought worth highlighting in that it encapsulates how casually ideology is imported into nominally straight reporting. The false tension between teachers and students whenever there is a labor dispute in K-12 education is a staple of anti-union messaging in US media. Every teacher demand and labor action is cynically positioned as “harming” student learning, with the implication of “let’s hurry up and end this and get the kids back in school.”
Like we saw during debates over Covid safety in schools last winter, It’s simply assumed teachers are learning robots without any labor needs, health requirements, or rights. Their labor demands are, by default and always in bad faith, falsely positioned against the needs of “students.” It’s moral extortion and meant to shift public opinion against unions so there’s more pressure for them to settle on bad terms.
A good example is this exchange between CNN anchor Brianna Keilar and CNN correspondent Nick Watt this morning on New Day (You can watch the segment here, excerpts are below)
Keilar (last seen in these pages misleading viewers about Bernie Sanders’ claim CNN ignored the substance of the Reconciliation Bill, which they empirically did) looks Super Concerned during the back and forth, juxtaposing images of striking teachers with a Deep Look of Sorrow on her face as Watt gives a generic Both Sides recap.
What’s useful to analyze is what happens at the very end, when the pretense of objectivity is thrown out and we get to the editorial rub. Watt, who appears to have done little-to-no original reporting on the dispute and is located 1,200 miles away in Los Angeles, throws in meta analysis. Uninterested in what is fair or just, he goes into PR mode, telling the viewer that “none of this is a good look for either side after all the chaos of Covid closures then staff shortages and all the learning loss. It is not a good look.”
Over the images of striking teachers we hear about how these strikes are not “a good look”, with the obvious implication being “okay, let’s wrap it all up”. Since it’s the district that hasn’t offered the teachers a contract yet, the only way this can hurry up and end is if the teachers simply pack it up and go home.
Then we get the following exchange:
NICK WATT: The school district today is offering free sack lunches to kids. The big question how long will this last? Well, we don't know. The union says it is going to last until a deal is struck. Interesting to note that the Kent school district, which is just a little bit south of Seattle, they were supposed to start school nearly two weeks ago, two weeks ago tomorrow, but there is a similar labor dispute there that is still not resolved so those kids are still not back. So, all eyes on the negotiations again today to see if they can hammer this out and get those kids back into school sooner rather than later.
BRIANNA KEILAR: Look, the victims in this are kids because we have seen those test performances. They're not good. We're looking at a potential generation of remediation here and kids need to be in school.
Translation: hurry up and settle before the teachers have even been offered a contract. If this sounds like Keilar is simply repeating a management talking point, it’s because she is. Last week Seattle Public Schools Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources Sarah Pritchett told KIRO7, “After suffering through the education disruptions and the emotional impact of COVID, it is more important than ever that our children start the school year on time.”
In case it’s not clear this is emotionally manipulative claptrap that obscures the core issue and seeks to blame teachers for what is ultimately a failure of the state to provide for the basic needs of student and teacher alike.
Just like we saw with the dispute over Covid measures in schools last winter, US media, by default, takes the side of power by accepting the loaded premise that the conflict is between “parents” vs. teachers unions or “students” vs. teachers unions; to make this the point of tension rather than poor vs. wealthy or our underfunded education system—teachers and students alike—vs. our venal electeds and stingy monied class. A major point of conflict between Seattle teachers and the district is the elimination of staffing ratios for special education students, a move that will severely undermine education for special education students. Why is gutting these standards “not a good look” to our CNN panel? Why is the fact that teachers are, once again, forced to picket and strike in the first place “not a good look”? Why is it only a PR problem when those at the bottom rung push back?
It’s a small example, but a useful one. Public perception is formed less by the substance of our debates, and more from the ideology inherent in the premises of these debates. Here, our ostensibly neutral anchor, by implication, lays the blame of Learning Loss at the feet of striking teachers before cutting to a Capital One commercial and it all happens without you barely noticing.
h/t Jeff Sharlet