The missing 'labour correspondent'

About a year ago an article appeared in The Guardian that lamented the demise of the 'labour correspondent'.

The main reason given then was that 'labour' had become subsumed under the all-embracing heading of 'business' - ironically, just what is happening in higher education establishments.

Today a similar article appeared in same newspaper - A gap in the picket line (John Lloyd).

The article bemoaned the absence of the labour correspondent in relation to the wildcat strikes that flared up at oil refineries around UK just two weeks ago.

I remember at the time sensing that for all the media time spent on the unofficial strike action, the public was pretty much left to its own devices in terms of what this all really meant.

For me, Lloyd nails the problem in the following statement taken from the article in question:

Something was happening: and if we did not know what it was, that may have been, in part, because there was no authoritative journalistic voice, informed by a knowledge of organised labour and its ways, to turn to for interpretation.

It seems that market forces has seen off the critical (mainstream) commentator in labour affairs, or cast such voices to the margins of the media.

Perhaps we'll see the return of the labour correspondent in the dark times ahead - hopefully the demand for an authoritative voice on labour affairs will almost increase in my line of work.

I doubt it, but you never know...

The end of labour correspondents

Today's MediaGuardian offers a timely reminder of the decline of the labour correspondent, with the news that the Independent is likely to be letting go of the last but one mainstream labour writer.

In Why labour reporters aren't working Peter Wilby laments of the time when labour stories - such those related to strikes, pay claims, negotiations, sackings - where rarely off the front pages.

Without easy access to the media Wilby argues that trade unions are often forced into campaigns designed to shame bosses.

Instead of labour specialists it is suggested that work of this kind has been subsumed into other specialisms, such as industrial correspondents who traditionally cover business stories.

However, as Wilby quite sweetly puts it:

"The labour reporters' true successors, however, are the finance and economics correspondents.

Britain's present prosperity comes from shuffling money around, not from making things.

Governments try to get bankers and venture capitalists onside, not union leaders.

Newspapers need a cadre of reporters who know about hedge funds and derivatives, rather than labour reporters who understand the difference between a stevedore and a docker."

It truly is a sad time when millions continue to face a wide-range of work-related problems and the media giants just sit back as if to say everything is fine on the workplace front.

The decline of organized labour clearly is a problem here as how do you report on many 1,000s of micro-disputes instead of a handful of altercations that involve similar numbers of workers?

I sense that part of the answer to this problem of under-reporting lies with the blogosphere, but even then the blogosphere, as it currently stands, is unlikely to match the power and influence of the Fleet Street brigade.

I hope I am wrong!