|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
Media Coverage of Protests: A Journalistic Analysis |
Current rating: 0 |
by Scott Gurian
Email: noamad1 (nospam) aol.com (unverified!) |
30 Sep 2001
Modified: 11:38:59 PM |
|
A quick course in media literacy, as I pick apart the AFP wire story on the DC protests paragraph by paragraph. |
I was very frustrated as I read the following article about Saturday's giant, antiwar rally in DC. Granted, the event wasn't ignored, as many protests of this sort often are, but the way it was portrayed in much of the media -- with the exception of cable station C-SPAN, bless their soul -- was incredibly slanted and demeaning.
One New York broadcast station I saw had a news trailer that aired during commercials and went something like "Peaceful protests in Washington turn violent, more at eleven..." In fact, from all other accounts I've heard, the "violence" that occurred was extremely limited and isolated, something that should have been a footnote to a news story on the day's events rather than the central focus, were it to be covered by any responsible journalist.
Having worked as a journalist and news reporter, yet consuming very limited amounts of broadcast media myself, I have been trained to become an active participant in the flow of information -- or at least I try -- rather than a passive media consumer [for more info on the media fast that first got me started doing this, see: http://pages.emerson.edu/students/scott_gurian/newmedia/finalmain.htm]. So, I talk back to my television and radio, I write letters to editors and ombudsmen, and I often take notes and make remarks in the margins of newspaper articles with which I disagree. I sometimes go through with a red pen, as if I was a third grade teacher correcting a paper, and I circle, underline and make comments about things that disturb me. Unfortunately, I found it necessary to take out my red pen after reading no more than a sentence into the following article. So, I thought I'd share some of my comments in the hopes that others might get into the habit of becoming active media participants and critical readers.
The article comes from the Agence France-Presse newswire, which is similar to Reuters or the Associated Press (AP). Of course, it's not like you could even respond to the author anyway, since it is unsigned as are many wire stories.
source: http://sg.news.yahoo.com/010929/1/1j8jo.html
Sunday, September 30, 7:26 AM Thousands of antiwar protesters march in Washington, San Francisco
WASHINGTON, Sept 29 (AFP) - Thousands of antiwar demonstrators, including many anti-globalization militants, took to the streets of Washington and San Francisco to protest possible US military action in response to the deadly kamikaze attacks on US targets earlier this month.
* Why the choice of the word "militant" to label the activists? It seems very scripted and intentual, certainly not the type of word someone would say by mistake. Though some of the protesters might not have a problem with this, it is not a word that most of them have used to describe themselves. To the average reader, this is a scary term. My dictionary defines "militant" as someone who is "ready and willing to fight, especially one who is vigorous and aggressive in support or promotion of a cause." What kind of images and notions do you suppose the average, non-activist reader conjures up when he or she hears a term like that? Certainly not the diverse group of several thousand peaceful demonstrators of all races, ages and sexes that I saw on C-SPAN on Saturday, calling for nonviolent resolution of the current conflict. Why not simply call them "protesters," "activists," or "demonstrators?" Note that this is the first time in the article that the word "militant" is used to describe the protesters.
In the US capital, a handful of demonstrators briefly clashed with authorities, leading police to use pepper spray to control the crowd, but the protest was largely peaceful.
* Note the focus on violence and sensationalism rather than on the underlying issues and grievances of the protesters. This is in the second sentence of the article. Though the article goes on to quote some of the speakers and gets a bit more into the issue, the coverage is still generally shallow, highlighting the fact that the rally took place rather than the fact that there is growing opposition to the coming war.
"We know that a new war will only deepen the cycle of violence," one of the organizers, Brian Backer of International Answer, told the antiwar militants gathered on Freedom Plaza, a few blocks from the White House.
* Note that this is the second time in the article that the word "militant" is used to describe the protesters.
"The primary source of terrorism in the world is indeed the United States," said another speaker, Reverend Lucius Walker, executive of director of Pastors for Peace, a group belonging to Answer (Act Now to End War and Racism).
"We must focus attention on the reason why" the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington occurred, he added. "The answer to that is in the misguided use of our military power around the world ... and corporate America."
* This sounded a bit out of context, so I rolled back the videotape to check whether it was accurate. To the author's credit, it was, more or less, but I still thought the selection of this quotation in particular was interesting, given that many other people said things that were equally meaningful, if not more so (including a medic who lost four members of his squad at ground zero and almost lost his own life, yet was speaking out against war-- why wasn't he quoted?). So why this quotation? Reader: Gee, not only are they "militants," but now they're criticizing capitalism as well. Didn't Bush claim that the terrorists were "attacking the American way of life?" It sounds like the militants are doing that as well. Those traitorous dogs! [hmm...if I didn't have any sense, I'd think there was some sort of concerted effort going on behind the scenes here. But what am I thinking?? Nah...]
The Washington protest drew some 5,000 people, many waving banners, flags and posters proclaiming "No War No Racism," "Love Not Fear" or "Heal, Don't Hurt."
* This is a gross underestimate. I heard several people mention estimates of 10,000; 13,000 and "well over 10,000." Why the disparity? As for the poster proclamations, the slogans that are quoted seem to grossly oversimplify the various, complex messages of the demonstrators. Why not quote one of the more meaningful, thought-provoking banners such as, "Our grief is not a cry for war?" Quoting only statements such as "Love Not Fear" makes the demonstrators seem like a group of well-intentioned but naive hippies stuck in the 70s.
Young and not so young militants, wearing green ribbons as "symbol of peace and mourning" joined anarchists, environmentalists, feminists, gay activists and foes of multinationals.
* Note that this is the third time in the article that the word "militant" is used to describe the protesters. Look at the other groups that are listed. The first in the list is anarchists, whose black bloc order has been hyped up in the sensationalist media to become something akin to terrorists. Its placement as the first group in the list is quite likely intentional. But how many anarchists (at least those in the black bloc, who are generally recognizable by their black-colored attire) were actually present at the event? I saw relatively few in the coverage of the rally that I watched, which included plenty of shots of the crowd. All the other descriptions of the rally's participants (environmentalists, feminists, etc.) also serve to paint a picture of the protesters as a radical fringe group. Why doesn't the list include less threatening categorical descriptions, such as "students," "university professors," "senior citizens" or "labor unionists," all of whom were also present? Aside from being told that "not so young militants" participated in the activities, nowhere are readers informed that the crowd was racially, chronologically and sexually diverse, including lots of "normal" people and not just radicals on the fringe of political discourse.
Many had come from afar by train, air or bus initially to protest the annual meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which were to have taken place this weekend but were canceled in the wake of the September 11 suicide strikes that left more than 6,000 people dead or missing in New York, the Pentagon and rural Pennsylvania.
"This war that Bush is going to get into is for the corporations," said Samantha Adams, a 36-year-old militant who waved a large US flag. "It is not for the people. Defense contractors are going to make millions."
* Note that this is the forth time in the article that the word "militant" is used to describe the protesters. Wait a minute. You mean to tell me some militants wave large US flags? That doesn't sound very militant of them. Something's a little fishy about this article.
Earlier a crowd marched in a park outside Washington's Union Station, near the US Capitol building, behind a five-meter-long (16-foot-long) banner reading: "Anticapitalists against war, racism, terrorism, property."
* Oh, but yes. We must be reminded that while one or two militants here and there might not be too militant that they are beyond redemption, the majority are still anti-capitalist traitorous dogs, intent on destroying the American way of life and, in the words of the President, "with the terrorists."
"Destroy imperialism, not Afghanistan," read a flag waved by demonstrators.
"The solution (to terrorism) is to work with the international court system," not war, said Laura Vild, a 19-year-old student who traveled six hours by bus along with 40 other students to come to the protest.
"We should use every democratic tool that we have," she said.
In San Francisco, nearly 7,000 people touting an array of social causes converged on a park in San Francisco's predominately Latino Mission District to denounce the decision to use military might to fight terrorism.
* OK. This is a problem that always pops up whenever I read an article about activism. Read it again and pay very careful attention to the words. The word "touting" seems to trivialize what the activists are speaking out against. Why not a more neutral word like "citing?" "...an array of social causes" gives a reader the impression that they protest against everything imaginable. They just like to complain a lot.
"The Bay Area has always been a Mecca for the progressive movement," said Miguel Gavilan Molina of the National Chicano Human Rights Council said after addressing the crowd from a stage. "This is a beginning of a peace movement, not only in this country, but in the global village."
* The use of this quotation makes it sound as if the antiwar sentiments are confined merely to a small group of protesters in one neighborhood in one part of the country. The intended reaction is, "Well, what do you expect in the Bay Area?" The article never mentions that people in DC came from as far away as Minnesota, Massachusetts, Georgia and even Greece to speak out against war.
There was no ostensible police presence among the crowd, which was peaceful.
* Of course the article ends the way it began, with a focus on potential police/protester violence and on the actual event of the protest rather than on the underlying message or historical significance of the demonstrations. But of course that would be too much to ask...
Scott Gurian (noamad1 (at) aol.com) is a freelance journalist and radio reporter who has traveled throughout North America covering stories for various alternative, non-commercial radio stations. Most recently, he followed the Zapatista march in Mexico for Pacifica radio's "Democracy Now! and reported on the Free Trade Area of the Americas protests in Quebec City in April of 2001 for Radio for Peace International. To listen to some of Scott's reports, go to: http://www.rfpi.org/progdesc/frrr-pd.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ FAIR USE NOTICE: This posting may contain copyrighted material that has not been authorized for distribution by the author or copyright owner. I am making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of copyrighted material as provided for in the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the information in this article is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
See also:
http://dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=13226&group=webcast
|
Comments
|
C-U Coverage of Protests |
by Peter Miller
peterm (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
30 Sep 2001
|
The News-Gazette selectively covered the weekend protests in today's paper (Sun, Sep. 30, 2001). Coverage included the following:
Lead story: "Bush rips Afghan Regime: President holding Taliban responsible," (AP) paragraph 2: "Peace groups marched in the capital, protesting that innocent lives could be lost in the coming retaliation against prime suspect bin Laden, believed hiding in Afghanistan."
Later in the same article (paragraph 19), "Activists and anarchistss gathered in the streets in Washington chanting 'no war.' Demonstrations originally planned to oppose globalization were transformed into an anti-war march. Other protesters burned an American flag. Workers at a construction site cursed marchers as they passed by."
Page A-6: Photo (large), "Washington Protests." "Metropolitan Police, bottom, line up along Constitution Avenue in Washington on Saturday as thousands of protesters march to Capitol Hill for a rally. The crowd represented various groups with different causes, including one with an anti-war agenda. Some dressed as doves of peace and others waved signs with sentiments such as 'War will not bring our loved ones back.'"
In an editorial by General Manager John Foreman (p. B-2), we gain insight into the selection of coverage. Foreman warns that military action must happen soon, lest the President lose support for an attack. He doesn't know who to attack, and he longs for the days of Clinton and Reagan who satisfied American desires for "wars [that are] short, clinical, and preferably, bloodless." How long will we wait for a military response? questions the newspaper chief as he warns that unity is threatened because "The partisans are already starting to snipe a little." Foreman doesn't understand and would prefer to ignore those who don't favor a military response. To him, opponents of violence merely threaten the President's ability to wage war. He says, "The peace-at-any-price nuts are already starting to suggest that our unity isn't their unity." |
|
