>Date: 2 Jan 2001 03:55:28 -0000 >From: "Online Journal" <editor@onlinejournal.com> >Subject: 01-01-00: The news media and political protests > >Online Journal - http://www.onlinejournal.com > >01-01-00: The news media and political protests > >By Carla Binion > >January 1, 2001 | Protests were effective in the 1960s because the news >media covered them. Today media organizations often ignore protest >demonstrations. When TV news networks do not cover a protest, the >demonstration cannot move public opinion. The various news media >organizations serve as the public's eyes and ears. When the media fail to >report any given event, the public remains blind and deaf regarding the >story. > >Most Americans get their news from television. Day after day during the >1960s, TV news networks showed close-ups of such atrocities as innocent >black children marching into police fire hoses. Television news people ran >Martin Luther King's speeches, and discussed and dissected them. The >American people's eyes were opened, through the media's lens. > >By contrast, during recent post-election protests in Florida, TV networks >kept a distance from Jesse Jackson and other like-minded demonstrators. >Few networks aired Jackson's speeches in their entirety. Television news >commentators did not explain and clarify the protesters' grievances or >give them sympathetic coverage. Fox Network's Bill O'Reilly and many other >commentators frequently maligned Jackson as a troublemaker. > >During last year's Seattle protests of the World Trade Organization, TV >networks also kept a distance from the demonstrators. Commentators on >MSNBC and other cable news talk shows said repeatedly that they did not >understand why people were demonstrating. They often said that the >protests seemed to be a hodgepodge of vague and cranky quibbles and >implied it would be impossible to grasp the details of the complaints. > >No wonder the commentators did not understand. They simply never asked. >Few TV networks conducted any in-depth interviews with spokesmen for the >protesters. The networks did not often show close-ups of peaceful >protesters being tear gassed or shot with rubber bullets-incidents widely >reported on the Internet and in alternative news publications. > >In the same way, TV networks gave little coverage to Jesse Jackson's >recent complaint that a mob of hired Republicans used violent tactics to >try to break up a peaceful post-election demonstration in Florida. If the >networks had spent adequate time examining that information, the public >would better understand the reasons for Jackson's protests. > >During the 1960s, public opinion shifted when the media showed the people >the truth about anti-war and civil rights demonstrations-especially when >the media explained the reasons behind the marches and sit ins. Once >public opinion changed, the people urged legislators to take action. > >Because the following example from history is a useful illustration of (1) >the media's impact on public opinion, and (2) the importance of having a >fully informed public, it will help to digress and explore it at some >length: > >Deborah Lipstadt researched the behavior of the American press during the >coming of the Holocaust in Beyond Belief (The Free Press, Macmillan, Inc., >1986.) Lipstadt says, "During the 1930s and 1940s America could have saved >thousands and maybe even hundreds of thousands of Jews but did not do so." > >Lipstadt points out that the U. S. was slow to recognize the Nazi threat >to the Jewish people and asks what might have been done to initiate rescue >operations sooner. She quotes Adlai Stevenson: "I believe that in >ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, the American people will make the >right decision-if and when they are in possession of the essential facts >about any given issue." > >The problem was, during the early Holocaust years, the American news media >did not present "the essential facts" to the public in a timely way. >Washington might have acted sooner to assist the Jews, says Lipstadt, if >the American public had known-via the media-what was going on and then >urged politicians to act. > >The U. S. press treated Hitler's early anti-Semitism and persecution of >the Jewish people as "sidebar" news stories. Although Hitler's Final >Solution was known to the media by 1942, the press did not fully convey >the fact to the American public. > >Deborah Lipstadt points out that in The Washington Post, March, 1943, >William Shirer criticized the public for thinking that reports of Hitler's >atrocities were only propaganda. Lipstadt also mentions that in January, >1944, Arthur Koestler cited U. S. public opinion polls showing that nine >out of ten Americans believed that reports of a Nazi threat were >propaganda lies. (Arthur Koestler, New York Times Magazine, January 9, >1944.) > >Lipstadt notes that the Christian Century (February 16, 1944) said in >response to Koestler that there was no use "screaming" about atrocities >against the Jews, claiming it would only "emotionally exhaust" those who >wanted to use their energies to build peace after the war. > >Could the media have been quicker to report the truth about Hitler in a >way that the American public understood? What did the media do wrong? > >In general, the media reported stories about the Nazi threat in piecemeal >fashion, instead of showing the public a complete picture all at once. >Lipstadt says newspapers did not allocate enough space for stories of >Hitler's increasing threats. Relevant news stories were buried in back >pages of the newspaper rather than given front page coverage. > >The January 1943 LA Times ran a review of the "Black Decade," meaning the >preceding ten years. However, the newspaper failed to mention >Kristallnacht, and did not mention the extermination program that had been >included in the paper's 1942 listing. > >Kristallnacht was the night of November 9, 1938, when Nazi mobs shattered >the glass in Jewish homes, temples and places of business. Many U. S. >newspapers initially took the event lightly. Some papers said the >Kristallnacht mobs were merely spontaneous rogue fanatics, and that Hitler >knew nothing about them. > >The New York Daily News thought that Kristallnacht was merely random >expression of popular anger by Germans under financial stress, and wrote >that Hitler "can no longer control his people." (New York Daily News, >November 15, 1938.) Many newspapers claimed Kristallnacht had nothing to >do with racial hatred. > >The St. Louis Post Dispatch said Kristallnacht was simply about greed, or >the "looting of a people." (St. Louis Post Dispatch, November 25, 1938.) >The Baltimore Evening Sun described it merely as a "money collecting >enterprise." (The Baltimore Evening Sun, November 14, 1938.) > >What does the media's handling of the early years of the Holocaust have to >do with today's media coverage of political protest? Here are some >connections: > >The theats posed by the World Trade Organization's policies, and by the >voting irregularities in Florida, are not the exact equivalent of the >threats posed during the years leading to the Holocaust. However, whether >they are the precise same threats is not the point. > >The point is, the demonstrators in Seattle and in post-election Florida >were voicing their concern about what they see as current threats to >democracy and civil liberties. If TV news commentators had done in-depth >research, they would have understood the reasons for the protests and >conveyed those reasons to the public. > >Armed with all the facts, the public could then develop an informed >opinion and respond accordingly. Absent the facts, public opinion on >issues raised in Seattle and in Florida will not be well informed, and the >public response will not be purposeful. > >Media critic Michael Parenti says in Inventing Reality: The Politics of >News Media (St. Martins Press, 1993) that the media do more than omit >important news regarding political protests. For example, they also often >undercount the size of political demonstrations. As one example, Parenti >mentions that in 1991, shortly before George H. W. Bush began his air >attack against Iraq, ABC reported on opposition to the war. > >Anchor Ted Koppel said there were "small groups" of protesters-one group >in Iowa and one in Berkeley, California, holding candlelight vigils. Says >Parenti, "ABC ignored the large and dramatic demonstrations occurring that >same day in the San Francisco Bay area in which 10,000 people shut down >the federal building and 2,000 shut down the Bay Bridge, the latter >resulting in hundreds of arrests." > >The media also often trivialize and marginalize protesters. Michael >Parenti notes that media pundits frequently mislead the public by >attributing irrational or trivial motives to demonstrators, characterizing >protesters as an unrepresentative sampling of the American people. News >pundits sometimes marginalize groups by falsely claiming they are violent, >or pundits try to discredit protesters as people merely trying to foment >chaos. > >For example, when a few anarchists in Seattle broke store windows, some TV >news commentators suggested the peaceful demonstrators were also >contributing to violence and chaos. As another example, lately when Jesse >Jackson speaks out about Florida voting irregularities, commentators often >say he is trying to stir up conflict for no purpose. > >Thousands of people plan to attend marches in Washington to protest the >upcoming Bush inaugural. The general public will not learn anything about >the reasons behind those protests if TV news networks and other media >organizations fail to report the reasons. Remember that even after >Kristallnacht, nine out of ten Americans believed the Nazis were no >threat, because the media did not report the complete story. > >It is important that people phone and write news organizations and >encourage them to give ample air time to protests of the inaugural, with >an emphasis on explaining the reasons for the demonstrations. Those of us >who would like to see the protests covered in depth should urge various TV >news organizations to air speeches by Jesse Jackson and other attendees, >and ask the networks to include as guests on news talk shows people who >represent Jackson and other protesters. > >Deborah Lipstadt said that Alexis de Toqueville believed that "the press >fulfills its highest purpose when it is a beacon to bring together people >who otherwise might ineffectively seek each other in darkness." Television >networks, newspapers, news magazines and other media organizations could >light the beacon during the protests of the Bush inaugural. They are more >likely to do that if large numbers of people write and phone them in >advance to let them know what we expect. -end-
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/02/01 EST