By | 5 min
We probably all have opinions or intuitions about how the British press represent unions and union activities. Such representations are likely to differ from newspaper to newspaper, and from day to day, depending on the story and the issue being covered. However, what if we take a broad view over a longer period of time? Is there a general discernable pattern in the way unions are talked about in the British press?
In a research project at the University of Huddersfield, we built two databases, each containing around 750, 000 words of news report from British broadsheet, tabloid and regional newspaper articles that mention the words TUC and/or union and/or unions (when union and unions referred to trade unions and not, for example, rugby union). The first database (called Unions93) contains articles published in 1993, while the second database (called Unions12) contains articles that were published in 2012. These two points in time were chosen to coincide with the founding year and the 20th anniversary of Unions21 respectively.
We used the Unions93 and Unions12 databases to investigate the contexts surrounding the terms TUC, union and unions, to see if there were any patterns of co-occurring words (collocates), and whether the patterns were similar or different at these two points in time.
Unions are angry
We found that, in both our databases, the words union and unions strongly collocate with anger, fury, threat, threaten, battle and attack. These words focus on (perceived) negative and hostile emotional responses, and perpetuate a discourse of war. Part of the way in which this is achieved is by comparing union activity to warlike actions. For example, arguments are described as battles, criticisms are described as attacks, and verbal communications are labelled as threats.
Unions are led by bosses, barons and chiefs.
There is a persistent trend across the two datasets for the press to talk about union bosses, chiefs and barons, particularly in stories that report accusations of high-ranking union officials receiving high-pay. These terms have rather negative connotations of mediaeval hierarchies. This tendency increases statistically in the 2012 data, with chief and chiefs becoming significant collocates of union. Additionally, across both databases, union leaders are persistently described as being involved in dealing or doing deals, which can have rather negative connotations.
Tax payers fund union activists
In both sets of data, union collocates, unsurprisingly, with member(s) and activist(s). However, in both corpora, activists are often contrasted with ‘ordinary’ union members, and the public. For example, activists are the people who organise strikes that disrupt services (that ‘ordinary’ members of the public rely on), whereas the activities of ‘ordinary’ union members include paying union subscriptions and voting in union ballots.
Further collocates of union that emerge from the data are rep, representative. These roles are discussed as part of a broader discourse relating to tax-payers funding union activities, with news reports stating, for example, that the public pay for reps to do their union business. This again contrives to separate union people from ordinary people, and union members from taxpayers, as well as undermine union work and services. There is a continuing tendency, therefore, for the press to construct different and opposing groups of people, and to ignore the possibility that individuals can be members of more than one group simultaneously.
Conclusions
The research we have done so far suggests that:
• The press focus on the (supposed) emotional response of unions as a whole group, and this is, more often than not, anger;
• There is an increasing tendency to construct Union leaders as barons and chiefs, and criticise them for their high pay;
• Tax payers are routinely differentiated from union activists, union reps, and union members.
While we acknowledge that the press are rather reluctant to report on the good work unions do in the workplace and beyond, these findings are, nevertheless, useful to union representatives for a number of reasons. The way we use language constructs our identity, and simply being more aware of how unions are perceived by the press can help unions to counter negative stereotypes. This can be done by continuing to avoid overtly emotional responses and choosing less combative metaphors to describe union activities. We also need to continue to rethink the way in which we as union members describe ourselves and the work that we do. For example, we should steer clear of words and phrases that, while not overtly negative, have become part of a language of unions (for instance, doing deals). Such language makes implicit connections to union activities of the past, which are portrayed, by and large, in a very negative way.
All this will help in the presentation of unions as rational, measured and logical organisations able to better represent their members’ interests.
Brian Walker
Language Unlocked
The Stylistics Research Centre
University of Huddersfield
