Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

eridani

(51,907 posts)
Wed Aug 12, 2015, 02:16 AM Aug 2015

Barbara Ehrenreich: In America, Only the Rich Can Afford to Write About Poverty

It would be nearly impossible for most poor people to find the time to write Nickled and Dimed

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/31735-in-america-only-the-rich-can-afford-to-write-about-poverty


Then, as the kids say today, I “checked my privilege.” I realized that there was something wrong with an arrangement whereby a relatively affluent person such as I had become could afford to write about minimum wage jobs, squirrels as an urban food source or the penalties for sleeping in parks, while the people who were actually experiencing these sorts of things, or were in danger of experiencing them, could not.

In the last few years, I’ve gotten to know a number of people who are at least as qualified writers as I am, especially when it comes to the subject of poverty, but who’ve been held back by their own poverty. There’s Darryl Wellington, for example, a local columnist (and poet) in Santa Fe who has, at times, had to supplement his tiny income by selling his plasma – a fallback that can have serious health consequences. Or Joe Williams, who, after losing an editorial job, was reduced to writing for $50 a piece for online political sites while mowing lawns and working in a sporting goods store for $10 an hour to pay for a room in a friend’s house. Linda Tirado was blogging about her job as a cook at Ihop when she managed to snag a contract for a powerful book entitled Hand to Mouth (for which I wrote the preface). Now she is working on a “multi-media mentoring project” to help other working-class journalists get published.

There are many thousands of people like these – gifted journalists who want to address serious social issues but cannot afford to do so in a media environment that thrives by refusing to pay, or anywhere near adequately pay, its “content providers.” Some were born into poverty and have stories to tell about coping with low-wage jobs, evictions or life as a foster child. Others inhabit the once-proud urban “creative class,” which now finds itself priced out of its traditional neighborhoods, like Park Slope or LA’s Echo Park, scrambling for health insurance and childcare, sleeping on other people’s couches. They want to write – or do photography or documentaries. They have a lot to say, but it’s beginning to make more sense to apply for work as a cashier or a fry-cook.

This is the real face of journalism today: not million dollar-a-year anchorpersons, but low-wage workers and downwardly spiraling professionals who can’t muster up expenses to even start on the articles, photo-essays and videos they want to do, much less find an outlet to cover the costs of doing them. You can’t, say, hop on a plane to cover a police shooting in your hometown if you don’t have a credit card.

This impoverishment of journalists impoverishes journalism. We come to find less and less in the media about the working poor, as if about 15% of the population quietly emigrated while we weren’t looking. Media outlets traditionally neglected stories about the downtrodden because they don’t sit well on the same page with advertisements for diamonds and luxury homes. And now there are fewer journalists on hand at major publications to arouse the conscience of editors and other gatekeepers. Coverage of poverty accounts for less than 1% of American news, or, as former Times columnist Bob Herbert has put it: “We don’t have coverage of poverty in this country. If there is a story about poor people in the New York Times or in the Washington Post, that’s the exception that proves the rule. We do not cover poverty. We do not cover the poor.”

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Barbara Ehrenreich: In America, Only the Rich Can Afford to Write About Poverty (Original Post) eridani Aug 2015 OP
Thank you! nt daredtowork Aug 2015 #1
Let me preface, I am sorry. Who are you thanking and why? 7wo7rees Aug 2015 #2
I think you are still mixing me up with darkangel daredtowork Aug 2015 #4
Not just the time, but perspective. Igel Aug 2015 #3
Newton had plenty of time mainly hifiguy Aug 2015 #5

daredtowork

(3,732 posts)
1. Thank you! nt
Wed Aug 12, 2015, 04:10 AM
Aug 2015

I must admit it's a huge pet peeve of mine that people who are already quite comfortable in life get to write about poverty because they have the social capital for "credibility" as a filter on issues. They have the means to sustain themselves while writing. These days many writers need a sort of "sponsor" as well (a spouse, a job that pays you to write that book).

Even if they have the communications skills, the people who have the skills to write about their experience are generally too harassed by appointments, under-the-table survival efforts, and stress to organize that sort of project. They need faith there is going to be a publisher/goal at the other end. They don't "know" anybody.

Then there is set of issues around fear. Because you are already on the bottom of the social heap, you may not want to publicize your situation. I've actually done a lot of formal writing on my on situation with a vague thought of (self)publishing some of it once I'm securely out of my situation. But I would be wary about creating more risks for myself right now. I don't have that network of approval and legitimacy that, say, a journalist or an academic has. By publishing, I simply open myself up to criticism by enemies of the "welfare state".

Still it stings to see people who already have everything earn plaudits, praise, awards, and big bucks for saying what I could very well say myself. I could use those resources a lot more. Think of a project that splits a book among 10 authors, and that book becomes a National Bestseller. That's 10 people housed.

Grr.

7wo7rees

(5,128 posts)
2. Let me preface, I am sorry. Who are you thanking and why?
Wed Aug 12, 2015, 06:15 AM
Aug 2015

Did you read this whole essay?

Please set me straight. Barbara E. is one of best journalists we have. What are you growling about?

Something's happening here,......
What it is not exactly clear.
Stop now, what's that sound.........

daredtowork

(3,732 posts)
4. I think you are still mixing me up with darkangel
Wed Aug 12, 2015, 05:34 PM
Aug 2015

In the TTW threads you were very upset with me because you confused me with darkangel.

Here I am agreeing with Barbara Ehrenreich, adding that this is my personal peeve as well, and adding why.

I'm sorry you are upset with me, but I don't deserve it.

Igel

(35,337 posts)
3. Not just the time, but perspective.
Wed Aug 12, 2015, 10:16 AM
Aug 2015

Newton had the time to come up with a good theory about how things happened. Meanwhile, on the farm, people had been using what he wrote about for a long, long time. This meant education, perspective, time.

Joule was a brewer, but had the time to sit around and work on basic problems that made his lot a lot easier. Brewers that worked 14-hour days didn't.

Monks who worked in the fields were likely to apply things, use trial and error to produce a new gadget or plant variety. Monks who worked in universities tended to produce theories about natural laws and, well, genetics.

If you painted as a worker, it was walls or portraits with "fill in the blank" spaces for the face of the next nobleman or bishop. If you painted under patronage, it was more likely to be the kind of stuff hung on museum walls or that created outrage or admiration.

Not much time? You live in a world of anecdotes and "get through this and to the next job". If you have more time there's at least the possibility of data and focusing on the process and what's behind the process. (Not that this distinction much applies to Ehrenreich.)

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
5. Newton had plenty of time mainly
Wed Aug 12, 2015, 05:45 PM
Aug 2015

because Cambridge University was shut down and evacuated because of an outbreak of the plague. Young Mr. Newton, being a lifelong bachelor, had nothing to do but read and think for a good long while.

And all he came up with was his laws of motion and (though Gottfried Leibniz came up with it independently and essentially contemporaneously) calculus.

Down time well spent.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Barbara Ehrenreich: In A...