Photos of the large crowd standing along University Avenue? None. Photos of protesters blocking traffic or being hauled away after arrest? None. The key front-page stories of the Star Tribune's B section? A laudatory story on the St. Paul police department's C.S.I. programs for the 7-to-10 age set, with a large above-the-fold full-color photo of Police Commander Todd Axtell hunched over a table demonstrating the finer points of dusting for finger prints. The A section had an above-the-fold story about the survivor of a dog mauling, more news on 3M's chemicals in our landfills, an article examining mammograms versus MRIs, Gov. Pawlenty's ad denouncing the tax increases on the wealthiest in our state, and another story on the St. Paul police department's pursuit of a man suspected in a recent triple killing.Surely all these stories are worthy of being reported on. But why do stories of protest get consigned to the deep inner-pages of the paper where their impact is further diminished? Certainly a protest with arrests deserves better coverage, doesn't it? If not, why not?
What makes such demonstrations unworthy of front-page status in either the A section or B section of the Star Tribune? Or of prominent coverage on the local TV news? Why are the voices of the protesters rarely given airtime or print space? Why should a mundane story such as Gov. Pawlenty's radio ad against taxing the rich take precedence over an antiwar demonstration of hundreds of people--young and old, veterans, blue-collar & white-collar workers, students, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters--who have found the courage to leave the comfort of their homes for the whipping wind and pelting rain, risking arrest and verbal--if not physical--assault in the belief that their protests matter?
Why marginalize the peace movement and its actions? That may not be the media's intent, but that is the effect. For better or worse, the Star Tribune is the de facto newspaper of record for our state. It needs to do a much better job in covering the anti-war movement. A much more honest job. The same goes for the TV news.
Tim Sherno from KSTP-TV was there, but not a peep, picture or person was mentioned on the newscast or online when I checked their website on the morning of April 4. Is an anti-war protest too hot of a potato for Channel 5 to handle? Maybe if we offered Stanley Hubbard's news anchors a case of botox we'd get better results.
WCCO had approximately 60 words (no images or footage) regarding the demonstration on their web site posted around 9:30 p.m. on April 3. I didn't see the TV newscast that evening or on the morning of April 4, but it's likely it got little if any airtime. WCCO's online blurb mainly focused on the traffic delaying aspect of the protest, interviewed no one, filmed nothing. On KARE 11's website, no mention of the demonstration, no listing of it in the news section. All those brightly-bleached smiles crowding the news studio, and not a single reporter sent out. I suggest a new award for this preening bunch of empty suits:11 Who Don't KARE.
All these station were trumped by--of all stations--Fox 9 News. Fox sent Ellen Galles to Lakeville South High School to cover the story of a group of peace activists there who came to attend a Town Hall meeting of Republican Rep. John Kline, but I saw no coverage of the University Avenue protest online. Still, the fact that they sent a reporter to Lakeville and posted some great footage of Ms. Galles' interviews and coverage of the event online gives us a glimmer of what thorough coverage might look like.
I saw both the protesters and the police act admirably during the April 3 demonstration--more admirably than many of those caught in traffic who, angry at the unexpected blockade, spouted all sorts of filth: from calling the brave ladies who were leading the demonstration in the middle of traffic "bitches" to calling those gathered in support on the curbside "disloyal fucks." I fell into the latter group.
To paraphrase a French general regarding that country's ill-fated occupation of Algeria: We cannot win in Iraq; we can only choose the magnitude of our humiliation. Leaving Iraq now is better than leaving later. This is what the peace movement is saying. Those who stood behind the traffic barriers and carried the banners--and then were carried off by the police--are the bravest among us.
It takes more courage to demonstrate peacefully than to occupy forcefully. Since 2003 we have seen the magnitude of the damage caused by the invasion and occupation of Iraq only grow. How much more blood has to flow in the streets of Baghdad before our political and military leaders make the tough--but the only--decision that can be made: removing American troops (and mercenary private military contractors) from Iraq? Those groups of activists who have been protesting American militarism and intervention since 2001--and earlier--have been right, and the Right can't deal with being told by this 'rabble' that they've been wrong. Can't the mainstream media deal with this fact either?
Are these protests, in the eyes of the news editors of the so-called mainstream media in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, merely senseless acts of limited heroism? Are they considered mere annoyances? They may be all of these things. But one thing is certain: The mainstream media's penchant for "pooh-poohing" these demonstrations is a disservice to the public's need to know that there is a sizeable--and growing--section of the community that is mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.
(Copyright 2007 by Joe Lake. Originally published in Pulse of the Twin Cities Weekly, April 2007)
No comments:
Post a Comment