Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 

Tue

30

Jan

2007

The Anti War March Meets The Media
Tuesday, 30 January 2007 10:25
by Danny Schechtor

Before you read my critique of coverage, understand that marches can be covered well with numbers put into perspective. That's what Bob Herbert of the NY Times does today:

You can say what you want about the people opposed to this wretched war in Iraq, try to stereotype them any way you can. But you couldn’t walk among them for more than a few minutes on Saturday without realizing that they love their country as much as anyone ever has. They love it enough to try to save it.

By 11:15 I thought there was a chance that the march against the war would be a bust. There just weren’t that many people moving toward the stage to join the rally that preceded the march. But the crowd kept building, slowly, steadily. It was a good-natured crowd. Everyone was bad-mouthing the Bush administration and the war, but everybody seemed to be smiling.


So, as you see, crowds build as more people come. If you go with early estimates, you will invariably downplay their size and power.

MEDIA DOWNPLAYS ANTI-WAR MARCH SIZE


This past weekend’s anti-war march was big, say the organizers and I have no reason to doubt them. They made this claim:

“Washington, D.C. -- In a massive showing of public opposition to the Iraq war, 500,000 people filled the streets around the Capitol today, completely surrounding the building. Participants converged on the National Mall from all over the country to voice their support for an end to the conflict in Iraq.

Three hundred buses rolled in early this morning, coming from more than 40 states and including at least 20 buses filled by New York City trade unions. United For Peace & Justice, the march coordinator, called this one of the the largest and most diverse demonstrations since the war began. According to UFPJ National Coordinator and veteran peace and justice leader Leslie Cagan, “This is a decisive moment in the history of this country and of our peace movement. In November, the people of this=nation voted for peace. We are here today, all ages, from all walks of life, to hold our elected officials to the mandate of the people.”
Add in protests in the rest of the country and it was even bigger.

But is that the picture most of America received? I didn’t see any report Saturday night on the front page of the Sunday NY Times online but, by the morning , the print edition of the Times wrote:

"Tens of thousands of protesters converged on the National Mall on Saturday to oppose President Bush’s plan for a troop increase in Iraq in what organizers hoped would be one of the largest shows of antiwar sentiment in the nation’s capital since the war began."

The story was carried as headline at the bottom of the page, not exactly prominent positioning. No Photo. A story about tennis got bigger play. The story was actually placed on p 21 (although it said p 22 on page l.) The story itself by Ian Urbina was well done. And the Times had two other reporters on the scene. The picture caption said thousands, not tens of thouands and certainly not a half-million. Low down in the story, it reported a March claim of 400,000 and then an unnamed police source suggesting that there were less than 100,00. Bloomberg News reported 500,000, one of the few media outlets to do so.

This was not the coverage "organizers hoped" for. Actually the organizers said it WAS the largest show of force since the war began with 500,000 present. The Times only acknowledged "tens of thousands." Does this matter? It doesn't if the numbers game doesn't matter. Years, ago the National Park Service which initially always underreported crowd sizes and then began having aerial photos taken that were analyzed by experts using grids, decided not to provide police estimates which were routinely reported. Perhaps that’s why the march did its own count.

Yesterday, the March claimed a half million—which, if true, IS "one of the largest shows of anti-war sentiment" (although I seem to remember the number of 750,000 used to quantify how many showed up in the big pre-war march of 2003). But the papers, seem to have followed the AP's earlier in the day estimate of "tens of thousands." True to form, the Washington Post online edition only reported "THOUSANDS." The Huffington Post headline: "Why The Anti-War March Won't Change Anything..."

Was this right on Or right off? I wasn’t there this time. My first anti-war march was in l965 so I have burned up my share of shoe or sneaker leather over the years as well as energy cheering some of the same speakers who turned up Saturday. I wasn’t feeling well enough to make the trip this time, but reported on it anyway.

I support marches as PART of a bigger strategy, not as THE strategy. And at least this time, many activists were planning to lobby Congress.

As readers know by now, I think its kind of important to get this message out to the people through the media, and not just the message that there’s opposition to the war but that there’s a movement opposing it. We need to show activism in action as a way for citizens to try to hold politicians accountable and participate in the process. Did that double message get through?

This approach requires a media strategy--and a challenge to the media— beyond sending out press releases and getting on Pacifica radio outlets.

It also requires a commitment to forging a stronger movement by ON GOING organizing and efforts to democratize and INVOLVE member groups and individuals in independent action outside of the Democratic Party. There needs to be some discipline too and a better presentation. Personally I think Dennis Kucinich has a strong message--but he shouldn't be given time on the program just to hype his campaign. That shows no respect for the movement. We need some independent journalists to really analyze this movement's strengths and weknesses, a former peace movement organizer told me. In that sense the numbers issue is not necessarily the only issue even if it does deserve comment. Another criticism I heard was that indy media was not represented with no blogger speaking.

On Saturday morning, the United For Peace and Justice website announced “(Watch live on C-SPAN!) Wow, I thought, you could see the March and Rally LIVE on CSPAN. At l:30, I tuned in just before the march was slated to start, and sure enough several cameras were in the crowed. The only commentary I heard then was that there were “thousands” there. Sounded small. All we saw was a rapper on the stage and people milling around, No interviews. No explanation. I guess I missed it.

Soon, a notice appeared on screen that CSPAN would switch away from the March to cover Hillary Clinton’s first speech in Iowa. And so they did, off to East High School for a stump speech. I expected them to come back while the march was happening. They didn’t. Instead they rebroadcast last Friday’s coverage of a National Review Institute conference on conservatism. Was CSPAN that nervous, that they had to preemptively “balance” the anti-war march?

Instead of the ongoing march, we heard righter than right columnist Michelle Malkin complaining that the media didn’t show the “throngs” at a right to life march, but only a few counter demonstrators. (CNN showed the 15 counter demonstrators and, for balance, had an interview with a conservative critic—but also a song by the raging grannies and a sound bite or two from well-known speakers like Jane Fonda.) It was superficial at best.

CSPAN promised to show it later, but when I tuned in, CSPAN l was running a session from the Memphis Media Conference earlier this month at 9:30 PM. (Later, I received an email saying I was in it so I can't criticize that, can I?)

I am sure the anti-war rally will be rebroadcast but the format with its endless parade of speakers and torrent of rhetoric is not exactly a media or audience turn on.

My point is that there was no real ‘live” coverage on the main CSPAN channel that I saw in a culture with news channels that can’t wait to go live. (When I worked at ABC, there was a term called SLR for Silly Live Remote referring to someone on freeway overpass “reporting live” on an ordinary rush hour where nothing was happening.) We have a media that will go "live" to the opening of an envelope. Just not to an anti-war march!

Coverage is more than just showing it; it is reporting on it, commenting on it, interviewing people there etc.

I flipped to Fox. If there was coverage I missed it. They were spinning a statement by John Kerry to the effect that world public opinion does not support the US war. This was being presented as “anti-American.” What do you expect from Faux News?

CNN did have a report with a journalist who had been at the march discussing it, saying there were “tens of thousands,” not a half million. He was in the studio, not on the Mall, with an anchor who patronizingly referred to protesters as “the kind of people we’ve seen before.” The march was treated as ho-hummer with the only interest expressed about whether active duty soldiers were marching. The CNN man said he heard about there were but didn’t see them.

It was then time for a standup from the White House lawn with a reporter discussing how the White House would respond to Congressional criticism of the war, as if the marchers didn’t exist. And then there was a replay of a soundbyte from President Bush under a graphic banner that said, can you believe, “THE SOUNDS OF DISSENT.”

AP reported “tens of thousands” not half a million.

Convinced this is their moment, tens of thousands marched Saturday in an anti-war demonstration linking military families, ordinary people and an icon of the Vietnam protest movement in a spirited call to get out of Iraq.

Andrea Hsu of NPR turned tens of thousands into: “Thousands of protesters gathered Saturday on the Mall in Washington, D.C.” Thousands!

NPR reported January 27: “While some citizens have protested against the Iraq war ever since the invasion of March 2003, the movement has failed to mobilize large numbers of people in public spaces. Has that changed now that a majority of Americans oppose the war?”

www.npr.org

For some reason, there seemed to be more movie stars speaking than usual. What signal does that send? Of course CNN ran image of Jane Fonda now and in North Vietnam in l973. There was a photo of Sean Penn marching.

Headline in a newspaper in Komo Washington: "Middle America meets celebrity glitter in anti-war march."

Some outlets, but mostly on the West coast noted that there were protests there too:

“WASHINGTON — Anti-war protesters from around the country converged on Washington, Los Angeles, San Francisco and other cities today, …”

Don’t the anti-war organizers see this as a problem? Don’t they think they should try to do something about it and take it as a challenge, and protest this ritualistic treatment? Shouldn’t they make the media coverage a issue? Are they only listening to themselves?

I was on Air America in LA on Saturday afternoon and host Bree Walker, a feisty former TV anchor agreed. But the anti-war movement continues to pay lipservice to this problem, perhaps for fear of “alienating” the press. Give me a break! Back in 2003, the Washington Posts own omsbudsman Michael Getler indicted his own newspaper for “downplaying protests.” He now works for Public Television.

This coverage is deplorable but worse: the anti-war movement had not made it an issue. With more than half the country opposing the war, the movement is still being under reported and marginalized! And, naively, not doing anything about it.

We still need a march on the media. Anyone with me?
 
More from this author:
For the New Year: MediaChannel Honors The “We” That Care (4631 Hits)
by Danny Schechter Annual Media Awards Recognize the Best of the Brave–who are the media heroes of 2006? Danny Schechter shares his; who...
Operation Co-Optation: Bush and the Dems - The Wars and US Reporting on the Documentary Conference (3636 Hits)
by Danny Schechter The symmetry was perfect. Up in New Haven, where I spent the weekend at the War, Documentary and Iraq conference, we...
Its Time to Fight Back Against The Debt Crunch (4920 Hits)
by Danny Schechter A year ago, I started making a film about the debt crunch in America. I subtitled it “America Before The Bubble...
Bush Is Doing It Again–Sending More Troops To War (3983 Hits)
by Danny Schlechter POST BUSH PURIFICATION PLANNED IN GUATEMALA “TERROR” WARS ESCALATING VISITING THE LEFT FORUM, HONORING DANNY...
Jitters, Panic, Anxiety As The Market Meltdown Sends A Chill (4565 Hits)
by Danny Schechtor Welcome To The Panic Dome Readers Respond to Subcrime Article AOL Offers In Debt We Trust and WMD Welcome...
Related Articles:
Let's March in January! An Impeachment Call to Action (10599 Hits)
by Dave Lindorff I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that, barring some incredible act of criminal cynicism such as the...
The New Media Offensive for the Iraq War (9858 Hits)
By Norman Solomon The American media establishment has launched a major offensive against the option of withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. ...
Mafia Hit On The Media (11738 Hits)
by John Weaver If I simply stood anywhere near Boris Berezovsky, I’m sure my hair would fall out and my skin would turn yellow. ...
"Our War Against Canada": Alex Cox and the Long March of American Militarism (8379 Hits)
by Chris Floyd This piece was written for Truthout.org. I. Echoes From the Past and Future The images look familiar, even comforting...
Media Sham for Iraq War -- It’s Happening Again (8965 Hits)
By Norman Solomon The lead-up to the invasion of Iraq has become notorious in the annals of American journalism. Even many reporters,...


Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Trackback(0)
Comments (5)add comment

a guest said:

0
Corporate State Media
Do organizers really think that the propaganda arm of the corporate state will report on demonstrations accurately? Look at what happened in Venezuela during the 2002 coup.

http://video.google.com/videop...689805144

If the media reports on an anti-corporate state demo at all, it will be to try to discredit the demo in some way. This should be unsurprising, I think.

Actions must be organized with this in mind. "... marches (are)... PART of a bigger strategy, not as THE strategy". So long as boycotts, occupations, general strikes, and legal measures and challenges passed through local and state governments are not used to complement "mass demos", there can be no success in altering the path to tyranny that this country (and world) is heading down.

Learn from others,

Blue

 
January 30, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Bad News for You--300 Enemy Killed
Just three days after the protest at the White House Iraqi forces killed upwards of three hundred Sunni and Shia jihadists. This is clear evidence that the Iraqui military is indeed stepping up, our new general is doing his job, and our revised tactics are working. Can you not see that winning this war is good for America? If not walk towards the light.

Matthew Wells
http://www.spweblog.com/holyspirit1/
 
January 31, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Hardly, good news for you!
Massacring people in an orchard doesn't mean anything is being stepped up. These "tactics" are not new. This use of sectarian killings has been used before.

Christ may have to make a 2nd coming just to re-educate Christians in the Christian religion. Most "Christians" seem to have turned into Satanists.

 
January 31, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Hey Matthew,
Hey Matthew,

Here's a word of advise for a Christian straight from your own fairy tale.

Love thy Enemy.

Luke 10:2S-28 with all thy strength. And love thy neighbor as thyself, and love thy enemy.

"The bodies of several women and children could be seen. "

Shame on you and the fictitious god you manipulate. I hope you burn in the hell you imagine for the mothers and children that were murdered with chickenshit American airpower dropping 500 pound bombs on babies.

And you think the Iraqis had something to do with your 'win'?
 
January 31, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
Why Is Crowd Count Still A Problem?
Is any government agency charged with providing a crowd count for marches on the Capitol Mall? Possibly the National Park Service? Did Washington ever provide a count? I'm tired of looking at biased projections on the internet... Does anyone have the Facts?

Wanna Know,
R



 
January 31, 2007
Votes: +0

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

adsense

Top