By Antonia Zerbisias
Toronto StarSeptember 19, 2002
A couple of months ago, my friend Jena, a politically aware 17-year-old who has such a '60s fixation she goes to Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young concerts, lamented how, when I was her age, there were "much better things to protest."
Hunh? Had she missed the anti-globalization demonstrations in Seattle, Quebec city, Genoa? But Jena waved those off, not convinced battling the corporatization of the planet was as romantic as protesting the war in Vietnam or marching for civil rights.
Not that I blame her. Media images of G-8 Summit protests are nearly always covered in one of two dismissive ways. Either the very few instances of violence are blown up big time for the news, or the more fanciful demonstrations (the puppets, the costumes, the bare bums) are mocked by the late-night comics. The protesters can't win: Their message is almost always subverted by the media. Which could explain why there don't seem to be any protests against what seems to be the inevitable war with Iraq. What with Americans so divided, you'd think there would be people greeting President George W. Bush on his tub-thumping, Republican fundraising tour, not just with flags, but also with placards.
But if there are demonstrators, the cameras don't show them.
This is standard media practice, however. These camera ops are stage-managed so tightly that journalists don't get a chance to capture what's happening on the periphery. And networks, always pinching pennies, won't send second crews to cover the people instead of the political message of the day, now conveniently displayed on that big blue background screen that must travel with Bush nowadays.
But don't think that the news nets would have much time for protesters or public dissent, if only the White House weren't so cleverly manipulative. Two cases in point:
· Last Thursday on CNN, anchor Kyra Phillips introduced a report by Washington correspondent Bob Franken who said that the Rev. Jesse Jackson was leading a march on the Justice Dept. "(T)hey are complaining about the loss of civil liberties, and the loss of access to this administration," said Franken. "It is the coalition of the same civil rights, labour, women's rights groups that we have known for decades now." He then gave Jackson about 10 seconds. To my ears he sounded awfully dismissive. But it got worse: A few seconds later Phillips gave at least three minutes to a story about a two-legged dog.
· The same day on MSNBC's Buchanan & Press, Sara Flounders of the Washington-based International Action Center (http://www.iacenter.org), which is co-ordinating a national day of protest for Oct. 26, was subjected to a tirade. "I looked at your organization," Pat Buchanan said. "It's not simply against an invasion of Iraq. You are against the oppression of gay, bisexual and trans people. You want America to be free of war and racism ... You're in favour of affirmative action. Aren't you just a hard leftist organization that is anti-anything Mr. Bush does?" Now, I am not entirely convinced Buchanan actually believed what he was saying — but he has to play a right-wing nut for the cameras. Despite that, MSNBC allowed Flounders to get her message out before giving her the hook a few short minutes later.
Then yesterday, wonder of wonders, Medea Benjamin and Diane Wilson, two ordinary-looking women, stood up and interrupted U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who was making his case against Iraq before Congress. "Inspections, not war!" they cried, before being hustled away by Capitol police. Both CNN and MSNBC replayed the scene, remarking on how Rumsfeld recovered "with aplomb" in "a quick comeback" about how the women would not be able to express their opinions in Saddam Hussein's country.
Later CNN interviewed the two women, all but berating them for interrupting the proceedings. Anchor Leon Harris never once picked up on what they wanted to hear: "How many civilians would be killed? How would they protect us against the backlash of anti-Americanism? Why is this all about oil? Why is it coming up now? Can't we wait until after elections? Why is the Bush administration stopping this inspection process? Why don't we put it back in the hands of the Security Council?" "We see you did not get locked up today," concluded Harris. "We will see whether or not your luck holds out. Thank you very much for talking with us this morning. We will see how this all plays out."
Seems like a foregone conclusion to me.
More Information on NGOs
More Information on Media and the Project of Empire
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
