On media coverage, public perception and protests

So, a gentleman of my acquaintance participated in the “let’s block traffic” demonstrations in sfo. I was on the phone with him the evening after, while watching the tv news on the subject, and later that evening spoke with my roommates on the subject.

The demonstrator was very enthusiastic about it, saying it was the most peaceful demonstration he’d ever been part of, that it was highly effective due to the distributed nature of it, that the protesters talked to the drivers and most agreed with the cause, disagreed with the methods, and were annoyed with the inconvenience, but not greatly so. He also talked about how their movements and locations of action were specifically targeted.

The news was sensationalist “hey, let’s show pictures of the only violence which seemed to have happened during this stuff, and verbally justify the driver’s frenzied swinging at any protester’s near him,” uncomprehending, “why are they doing this, what do they hope to accomplish? why aren’t the drivers more reactive by and large? etc”, and heavily biased against the protesters.

My friends agreed with the motives of the protesters, but thought their methods were totally whack, though they had no suggestions as to what could be done. “This is totally not helping.” “What’s the point?” “Nobody in the government is listening to us.”

So, okay. Now, my breakdown on the relationship between media coverage, public perception, and protests.

Newsmedia are about catching your attention, and nothing catches anyone’s attention like a threat, the bigger the better. Scare people, and bingo, you have their attention, and thus, you have ratings. Anyone who doubts media bias might want to investigate why they haven’t mentioned the virulent hatred that exists between Al Qaeeda and the Iraq regime, despite the connection the executive branch repeatedly implies (though never states). They’ve had months to do it, but I haven’t heard a whisper of this point from any major media outlet, and, while not a news junky, I’ve paid some attention. In fact, I’ve heard nothing about any link between the two. Apparently their geographic proximity and racial/religious “similarities” was all that was required.

There’s probably also some validity to major media conglomerates being run by people who favor the status quo, in terms of intranational power structures, and influencing the news appropriately. By the same token, those on the down and out would have a great deal to gain by being the new elite, though that’s a bigger stretch, imho. But it would not be surprising to hear that anti-establishment sentiment is more common among the poor.

We all have personal experience, but anyone who devotes five minutes’ thought to it realizes that any individual’s personal experience is hardly representative of everyone’s personal experience. (Sadly there are many who seem to have forgone this effort). We fill in the gaps with whatever is available to us, and broadcast media is the intended means to fill that gap. And even when being skeptical, and checking into a wide variety of sources, it’s hard not to subscribe to the theme.

Now, let’s step back and take a look at the history of protest movements, here in the U.S. (and the colonies before that). Generally speaking, protests follow a pretty standard path. You have the reasonable, rational, calm people, saying, “excuse me, but this isn’t right”: Early abolitionists, the Mattachine society, so forth and so on. Sometimes people pay attention to them, no one is greatly inconvenienced, nothing remarkable happens, and all is quickly forgotten. More often, they’re ignored. So, objectors step up their tactics, Malcolm X, StoneWall Riots, what have you. More people start paying attention. The quiet, rational people are still there. See also the HRC, Susan B Anthony, Martin Luther King.

Often the moderate objectors distance themselves from the radical objectors. But I don’t think the moderate objectors often appreciate how useful it is to have the radicals there to draw attention to the cause. The moderates can act as a bridge, sharing with the content a distaste for the tactics of the radicals, while sharing a cause with the radicals. My impression is that these dynamics are almost unavoidable. I also recall that the mattachine society didn’t really accomplish dick in the years before the drag queens threw a riot in manhattan, (other than to help the drag queens to reach critical mass, perhaps). I encourage those objectors who criticize the radicals to ponder that notion before they condemn them completely.