Channtal Fleischfresser: All the news that's fit to quietly ignore and downplay

[Jarrod Ballou/The Daily Pennsylvanian]

Two weeks ago, on Oct. 26, over 150,000 people gathered in Washington, D.C., in what is being called the biggest anti-war demonstration since Vietnam.

Busloads of people were mobilized from cities up and down the East Coast -- 22 from Philadelphia alone -- with thousands more coming in from all over the country. Susan Sarandon, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Rep. Cynthia McKinney, among others, spoke earnestly and eloquently, demanding that the Bush administration rethink its plans for a pre-emptive war against Iraq.

It was a monumental event by anyone's standards, even more so for those who were present. Curious, then, that The New York Times, one of the nation's leading newspapers, barely made mention of it in the next day's paper.

The Times has been upholding the Bush administration's stance throughout the "war on terrorism," and this demonstration was no exception. While it is unlikely that an attack on Iraq would do anything but provoke more terrorism, it is still promoted as a part of this larger "war." As such, the most adequate response to an anti-war protest flying in the face of the present administration would be to ignore it. People look to the news to know what's happening in the world. If it isn't reported, it must be insignificant and unworthy of mention.

What happened that Saturday meant something. In fact, it meant so much that one of the most widely-read newspapers in the world didn't have the courage to admit it and so chose not to acknowledge its importance. While this is bad journalism, a newspaper is within its rights to publish -- or not to publish -- what it wants.

Arguably, the fact that the news coverage -- television as well as print -- did not do it justice simply reinforced the impact of the rally. It proved that there is a significant group of people who openly oppose President Bush's pre-emptive war aims, enough to put everything on hold to get on a bus voice their opinions. It is reassuring to me that there are that many people so strongly opposed to war, sanctions, imperialism, military displays of power and political diversion.

I had never been to a rally or a protest before. Like many others, I had assumed this position of helplessness -- not apathy, but just a feeling that nothing I could do would realistically make a difference. That day, those 150,000 people changed my mind.

I was also hesitant to go as a non-American, feeling that it was not necessarily my place to be protesting a government action in a country where I was not a citizen. But there was actually quite a large international contingent present -- even Brazilian! The administration's decisions will affect citizens and non-citizens alike. The point is that, ultimately, people living in the United States have the right to express their opinions if they feel something is wrong.

What struck me as so powerful was that the people who were there couldn't know what kind of an impact their presence would have. The senior citizens or the handicapped, for whom it must have been quite the struggle to get to the protest, were there simply to show support for change.

The Village Voice, which actually published a very informative article about the rally, quoted one 72-year-old woman who had never been to a protest before: "if the U.S. were economically okay, there wouldn't be a call for war," and that "whether we'll survive as a democratic nation" is questionable.

The rally was a strike against complacency. There is something to be done. If you believe that war against Iraq is wrong, don't just talk about it -- make your opinion known.

Ignoring popular dissent is a superficial defense mechanism, but while the news may try to downplay the impact of this sort of dissent, that in itself is proof that it has not gone unnoticed.

Ultimately, politicians care what the public thinks, and with enough protests like last month's, they will notice.

Channtal Fleischfresser is a junior History major from São Paulo, Brazil.

Comments (8)

Ms. Freischfresser's opinion piece was excellent: cogent, clear and factual. I, too, was dismayed that the New York Times chose to minimize the report about the protest. I was also dismayed that other news venues chose the same tact. Little or nothing about the rally was reported in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal (no surprise), or Christian Science Monitor. The online version of the BBC news had a small, although accurate, piece. Of most concern, however, was that radio and TV 'journalism' chose to report inaccurate information or not at all. Initially, NPR erroneously reported that only 15,000 people attended. Obviously the reporter was not there or was at a different protest! Anyone attending the DC rally could easily understand that the attendees numbered at least 100,000. TV media gave the protest scant 15-30 second coverage. The only media source providing comprehensive coverage were 'alternative' sources such as Pacifica Radio and the Village Voice. The questions we should all be asking include: What does it mean to a democratic republic that such an event ( which 25 years ago would have received front page and prime time news coverage from all responsible media venues) is virtually ignored by the media? Can mass media be trusted to report information and events in a way that thoughtful people can use to make well informed decisions? Can a thoughtful person, who endeavors to stay informed about current events, use mass media sources to provide useful and accurate news reporting? In what way are our perspectives as individuals, a nation, a world, guided by misinformation from mass media and what does this mean to current politics and world events? Perspective is guided by knowledge and experience. We are living in a world where information from media is an imperative for understanding events, people, and societies that we are unable to experience directly. It is, then, even more disturbing on a much wider scale that we can not rely on media sources to report accurate information, or to even report at all, about events of importance to us all. Penn Grad Student, Grad Student Philadelphia

To Penn Grad Student, This is a sufficiently important issue that we should be careful to be correct in our factual statements. You say, "Llittle or nothing about the rally was reported in the Washington Post." This is not correct. The Washington Post carried a front page article on the demonstration the next day. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24432-2002Oct26.html Nothing undermines a worthwhile argument more than sloppy assertions of fact. Let's be careful in this vital public discourse. Penn Parent Washington, DC

What disturbs me is the message this sends to protestors--no matter how large the number of protestsors or how important the issue a peaceful protest is not newsworthy. To get attention to a cause it seems that protestors will have to resort to the kind of rioting that has gone on at anti-globalization rallies. opinion

The papers did the anti-war movement a favor in burying the coverage. Unlike the 30-40% of Americans against war on Iraq, the demonstrators operated from the understanding that there has been no single force of evil in history greater than the United States. The organizers of the rally, the Workers World Party, have previously supported such peaceful luminaries as Slobodan Milosevic and Kim Jong Il. To keep this fact hidden from the American people is essential to the anti-war movement's survival. If regular Americans saw this, they'd not only support a war against Iraq, but also against the protesters. Scott Ganz Los Angeles doctorsuarez66@hotmail.com

Furthermore, I find the author's topic, downplaying, funny, since she herself downplays the entire debate on the war's merits. "While it is unlikely that an attack on Iraq would do anything but provoke more terrorism, it is still promoted as a part of this larger 'war.'" Heaven forbid any sort of argument were to emerge from this! Why do that when it's so much easier to state it as though it were obviously true and move on? Scott Ganz Los Angeles doctorsuarez66@hotmail.com

Since when is the arrival of 150,000 war protesters a "monumental" event that should stop the presses of the N.Y. Times? A mere .05% of the population staging a protest does not necessitate a lead story in the most read newspaper in the United States This is a non-article complaining about non-coverage of a non-event. Perhaps you should hold a protest to protest your lack of media coverage. At least that would be more original and interesting. Chris Corsi Medford, NJ

Heh heh: "what is being called the biggest anti-war protest since Vietnam." Apparently the protests for this war may be even greater than those for the many wars we've had since Vietnam. No guarantee they are larger than for the war ten years ago, but the biggest supporters of these protests are apparently not afraid to suggest they could be. As far as getting an unbiased report of the events of Oct 26, I can chose either the Village Voice, which apparently got the hot scoop from a "72-year-old woman" who questioned the survival of our state as a democracy, or the NY Times, Wash Post, Economist, etc. Since I'm in exile and couldn't be there, I'll trust the latter. Yes, it's unfortunate I couldn't make the "strike against complacency." You see, I was complacently deciding for whom to vote tomorrow. And complacently reading. If I had known complacency was the issue, I would have taken some time off and shown up, but I thought it was about a war. On the other hand, perhaps there are ways of expressing an opinion that don't involve a lot of free time and extra money. Maybe people who write letters to papers also have a valid opinion about politics. Maybe people who support a war in Iraq simply choose to "make their opinion known" using other methods, such as casting a ballot. Maybe I'm just angry that someone would suggest that showing up at a rally somehow means you care more about humanity. Or maybe I'm just tired and bitter because I'm getting old. I don't know. Anyway, for the record, I'm also "strongy opposed to war, sanctions, imperialism, military displays of power, and political diversion." I'm also opposed to King George, slavery, Nazism, totalitarianism, Slobodan and more. I also don't like the nuking of New York, D.C., Philly, Tel Aviv, Istanbul, or anywhere else for that matter. Ok, ok, that wasn't fair. It's likely no one else reading this does either, but simply has a different risk assessment than mine, and I can accept that. I just hope democracy survives. On a similar note, it's almost time to vote. If you're in a district where it won't even be close, try voting for a third party. Green, Libertarian, whatever. Maybe they'll get enough votes somewhere to get some public money. Or maybe it'll give someone on the Hill the courage to help out McCain and vote for some campaign finance reform. I know for certain I'll never vote for Orin Hatch or his local cronies after he sponsored the DMCA and Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act. There I am being bitter again. I'll call it quits. I'm tired and I want to go to bed. Brant D. Kuehn Exile BrantDKuehn@netscape.net

Ms. Fleischfresser's opinion piece brings up two main points. The first one is the fact that, as she says, "there is something to be done". I fully agree with her. We shouldn�?t just stand still and do nothing about that fact that Mr. Bush is hell-bent to go to war. War is sick and should be avoided at all costs. The second point that Ms. Fleischfresser brings up, is the fact that anyone living in the U.S., citizen or not, has earned the right to speak up and express their opinion on matters that involve the safety and well being of the citizens of this country. We should all be grateful and proud of young people like Ms. Fleischfresser. She demonstrated strong will and political maturity, as well as, a concerned interested for our country. Alvin Peartri

Comments are closed for this item.