The strike could also lead to better working conditions for the nurses, and better healthcare for patients in the long run.
How about we focus on the potential positives, instead of the short term pain?
We could also mention that the strike wouldn’t be needed if the filthy rich weren’t a bunch of fucking assholes.
Trump tells the nation that there’s going to be pain in the short term because of his shitty leadership, the media gleefully parrots.
Nurses who can’t afford a place to live go on strike, the media: “omg not temporary inconvenience!”
Here in the UK there have been quite a few strikes recently and the media bias is strong. The unions demands are a footnote while the rest of the coverage is talking about how much of a negative short term impact it’s going to have and interviews with people who are going to be personally affected. Not to mention government ministers getting plenty of airtime to decry the workers as greedy as villainous.
How about we focus on the potential positives, instead of the short term pain?
The purpose of a strike is to inflict enough pain that the organization you’re striking against accedes to your demands. Any news article worth its salt covering a strike will discuss the pain it inflicts both because it affects people outside the organization and because that’s the leverage the strikers have.
The article’s job isn’t to “focus on the potential positives” because its job isn’t to be propaganda for or against the strike; it’s to cover who’s striking, what they’re striking for, and the leverage they have – to inform the reader of current events, to be news.
If that was the case the title would read
Thousands of nurses forced go on strike across New York as flu season hits due to unacceptable working conditions
Recognize the spin
What you’re describing is comically biased and nothing any serious news organization would print outside of an editorial. I have serious problems with The Independent, but this article is fine. You’re clearly aching for propaganda and/or editorialization, and there are plenty of places to find it.
Would you like me to find you an editorial about this strike?
They are striking because their demands weren’t met before the strike, so they are forced to strike to reach an equitable end. No one starts with a strike, leaving that out of the title and subtitle is also bias.
So all strikes happen because demands weren’t met. Cool. And the fact that this is ostensibly true of literally every strike bolsters your case that this information should be in the headline… how, exactly?
“Person McPersonson, who is a human being on or orbiting Earth and breathes oxygen, does a thing” should be in every article written about a person going forward just to make sure the people are informed.
I’m not even going to bother arguing the obvious point that “forced” or calling the working conditions “unacceptable” in the publication’s voice is hilariously biased, because a) you’re clearly not intellectually honest enough to understand that and b) you’ve already dismantled your own shitty alternate headline by making everything you added to it superfluous – again, assuming the intent is to include pertinent information and not to make a propaganda piece.
Good. Honestly healthcare, IT, and truck drivers\public transit drivers need to go on a solidarity strike for a week, at least.
That will grind the country to a pretty quick halt, and hopefully would snowball to include other industries.
They need us to make their money, and if we stop, their precious stock prices will tank. Their balance sheets don’t adapt well to long stretches of no incoming cash flow
MAGA don’t need no nurses when there’s plenty of horse paste at the Tractor Supply.
Doctors would strike as well, but any mention of unionizing will get any doctor fired in the US.
