The Anti War March Meets The Media

 By Danny Schecter 

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"
(select.nytimes.com You need to be on Times Select to get op-ed 
pieces).

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 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 "housands" 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" 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?

Comments to Dissector@mediachannel.org

From:
http://www.newsdissector.com/blog/2007/01/28/the-march-meets-the-media/

Thousands join bicoastal war protest

The Washington rally draws about 100,000 people. Marchers also take to
the streets in L.A. and San Francisco.

By Adam Schreck, Ashraf Khalil and David Streitfeld, Times Staff 
Writers

 January 28, 2007 

 WASHINGTON -- About 100,000 antiwar protesters from around the country
converged Saturday on the National Mall, galvanized by opposition to
President Bush's plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq.

Protests attended by several thousand people also were held in Los Angeles, San Francisco and other cities. But the demonstration in the
nation's capital was among the biggest since the war began.

Joining the Washington rally were several members of the House of
Representatives and a few Hollywood liberal activists, including Jane
Fonda, who said it was her first antiwar demonstration in 34 years.

"Silence is no longer an option," said Fonda, once derided as Hanoi 
Jane
for her opposition to the Vietnam War. She was flanked by actors Sean
Penn, Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins.

Although longshot presidential contender Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich
(D-Ohio) made an appearance, the demonstration failed to lure the big
guns of Democratic politics, such as presidential hopefuls Sen. Hillary
Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)

"If I was Barack Obama, I would be up there," said Will Ehrenfeld, 18, 
a
freshman at Tufts University.

Martin Freed, 60, of Alaska, said Democratic leaders were "cowards" for
skipping the protest. "They ought to be out here addressing us," he
said.

Signs focused on Bush's decision to send more troops to Iraq. "A surge
seems like the wrong way to go," said Sarah Bratz, 28, of Rockland, Maine.

Under sunshine that made the day feel like spring, others stood with
brightly colored placards bearing slogans such as "Bush Bin Lyin" and
"Civil War Accomplished."

Shirin Afssous, an Iranian American, was among those who said they
worried that Bush intended to expand the war into Iran. "The troops 
need
to come home," the Fairfax, Va., resident said.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) pledged not to vote for "one dime 
for
this war," then led the protesters in a chant mocking the president:
"He's not the decider; he is a liar."

Fonda drew cheers. She said she had stayed away from antiwar rallies 
out
of concern that the "lies spread about me" would harm the movement.

"Thank you so much for the courage to stand up to this mean-spirited,
vengeful administration," she said.

There were some counterprotests at the edge of the crowd. And at one
point, more than 100 protesters broke away and rushed up the front lawn
of the Capitol, sending police scrambling. But U.S. Park Police said
there were no arrests.

In Los Angeles, about 3,000 marchers wound through downtown on a cold,
rainy afternoon, demanding in often angry speeches an immediate 
military
withdrawal from Iraq.

They staged the first of two rallies outside the Democratic Party
headquarters at 9th and Figueroa streets, intending to send a message 
to
those now in control of Congress.

"The Democrats, like the Republicans, voted for this war because they,
like the Republicans, believe that the oil in Iraq belongs to us," said
Jim Lafferty, executive director of the Los Angeles National Lawyers
Guild.

One man, dressed as Jesus, carried a sign saying, "Even I can only
forgive so much, George." Dozens of signs declared "Impeach Bush."

Leading the march were prominent antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan, whose
son was killed while serving in Iraq, and Ron Kovic, the disabled
Vietnam veteran who wrote "Born on the 4th of July."

"I'm seeing soldiers and veterans like myself who trusted and believed
at first and who are realizing they've been lied to," Kovic said.

Sheehan, a Bellflower native, expressed disappointment at the size of
the protest.

"There's definitely a groundswell growing. I just wish it was growing
faster," she said. "If half the people of Los Angeles who disagree with
this war were here, then we would have miles of people."

A small group of counterprotesters gleefully needled the marchers with 
a
bullhorn.

"Shame on Cindy Sheehan for dragging around her dead son like some kind
of Hollywood prop!" Reuben Israel yelled.

In San Francisco, many of the marchers were middle-age or beyond. Jan
Harwood, 75, came up from Santa Cruz. "Older people tend to be more
aware," the retired psychiatric social worker said.

Sheila Savannah, 60, a retired librarian visiting from Arizona, said, 
"I
thought we learned our lesson in Vietnam, but obviously we didn't."

Organizers had hoped to muster tens of thousands, but fell well short 
of
that. The crowd swelled to several thousand once the march got 
underway.

"This came up at the last minute," said Barbara Blong, a housing
activist. She motioned to a neighboring mall. "People are shopping
instead."

They'll get another chance. Organizers were already handing out 
leaflets
for the next demonstration, in March.

From:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rallies28jan28,0,6942524.story?coll=la-home-headlines