Wednesday, September 28, 2005
ASSIGNMENT/NEWS DECISION: Why did national media not cover 100,000-person
For Tuesday's class, please read the two stories below. The first is from
the non-profit website Fairness & Accuracy in the Media. The second is a
column by Detroit News columnist. The Detroit News is owned by Gannett
Co., Inc., which also owns USA Today and is the nation's largest newspaper
chain in terms of numbers of papers.
Also please look at:
Consider these questions:
1) How should the media judge or report the size of a crowd in the absence of any "official" estimate? What should a media outlet do if it suspects the accuracy of an official estimate?
2) Does the size of a demonstration matter? Why or why not?
3) Does the fact that Hurricana Katrina was still affecting the Gulf Coast at the time of the march provide an explanation, or defense, for the lack of coverage of the rally?
4) Should a protest by 400 people be afford the same amount of space or coverage as a protest involving at least 100,000 people, and perhaps two or three times that number?
5) What is the relationship between the coverage of a Red Sox game, which might be attended by 35,000 people, and a protest on a civic issue attended by at least three times that number?
Was it appropriate for The Eagle to follow up with second-day coverage?
Should it explain the lack of first-day coverage to its readers? Why or
STORIES TO READ:
500,000 People Vanish in Washington, DC ÿÿ
Disappearing Anti-War Protests
Tuesday 27 September 2005
Media shrug off mass movement against war.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans around the country protested the Iraq War on the weekend of September 24-25, with the largest demonstration bringing between 100,000 and 300,000 to Washington, D.C. on Saturday.
But if you relied on television for your news, you'd hardly know the protests happened at all. According to the
Nexis news database, the only mention on the network newscasts that Saturday came on the NBC Nightly News, where the massive march received all of 87 words. (ABC World News Tonight transcripts were not available for September 24, possibly due to pre-emption by college football.)
Cable coverage wasn't much better. CNN, for example, made only passing references to the weekend protests. CNN anchor Aaron Brown offered an interesting explanation (9/24/05):
There was a huge 100,000 people in Washington protesting the war in Iraq today, and I sometimes today feel like I've heard from all 100,000 upset that they did not get any coverage, and it's true they didn't get any coverage. Many of them see conspiracy. I assure you there is none, but it's just the national story today and the national conversation today is the hurricane that put millions and millions of people at risk, and it's just kind of an accident of bad timing, and I know that won't satisfy anyone but that's the truth of it.
To hear Brown tell it, a 24-hour cable news channel is somehow unable to cover more than one story at a time - and the "national conversation" is something that CNN just listens in on, rather than helping to determine through its coverage choices.
The following day (9/25/05), the network's Sunday morning shows had an opportunity to at least reflect on the significance of the anti-war movement. With a panel consisting of three New York Times columnists, Tim Russert mentioned the march briefly in one question to Maureen Dowd - which ended up being about how the antiwar movement might affect Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential chances.
On ABC's This Week, host George Stephanopoulos observed, "We've seen polls across the board suggesting that we're bogged down now in Iraq and now you have this growing protest movement. Do you believe that we're reaching a tipping point in public opinion?" That question was put to pro-war Republican Sen. John McCain, who responded by inaccurately claiming: "Most polls I see, that most Americans believe still that we have to stay the course.... I certainly understand the dissatisfaction of the American people but I think most of them still want to stay the course and we have to."
A recent CBS/New York Times poll (9/9-13/05) found 52 percent support for leaving Iraq "as soon as possible." A similar Gallup poll (9/16-18) found that 33 percent of the public want some troops withdrawn, with another 30 percent wanting all the troops withdrawn. Only 34 percent wanted to maintain or increase troop levels - positions that could be described as wanting to "stay the course." Stephanopoulos, however, failed to challenge McCain's false claim.
(An L.A. Times recap of the protests - 9/25/05 - included a misleading reference to the Gallup poll, reporting that while the war is seen as a "mistake" by 59 percent of respondents, "There remains, however, widespread disagreement about the best solution. The same poll showed that 30 percent of Americans favored a total troop withdrawal, though 26 percent favored maintaining the current level." By leaving out the 33 percent of those polled who wanted to decrease troop numbers, the paper gave a misleading impression of closely divided opinion.)
On Fox News Sunday (9/25/05), panelist Juan Williams was rebuked by his colleagues when he noted that public opinion had turned in favor of pulling out of Iraq. Fellow Fox panelist and NPR reporter Mara Liasson responded, "Oh, I don't think that's true," a sentiment echoed by Fox panelist Brit Hume. When Williams brought up the Saudi foreign minister's statement that foreign troops were not helping to stabilize Iraq, panelist William Kristol retorted: "So now the American left is with the House of Saud." (That was, if anything, a more complimentary take on the protesters than was found in Fox's news reporting, when White House correspondent Jim Angle - 9/26/05 - referred to them as "disparate groups united by their hatred of President Bush, in particular, and US policies in general.")
Another feature of the protest coverage was a tendency to treat a tiny group of pro-war hecklers as somehow
equivalent to the massive anti-war gathering. NBC's Today show (9/25/05) had a report that gave a sentence to each:
"Opponents and supporters of the war marched in cities across the nation on Saturday. In the nation's capital an estimated 100,000 war protestors marched near the White House. A few hundreds supporters of the war lined the route in a counterdemonstration."
Reports on NBC Nightly News and CBS Sunday Morning were similarly "balanced," and a September 26 USA Today report gave nearly equal space to the counter-demonstrators and their concerns, though the paper reported that their pro-war rally attracted just 400 participants (that is, less than half of 1 percent of the number of antiwar marchers).
In a headline that summed up the absurdity of this type of coverage, the Washington Post reported (9/25/05): "Smaller but Spirited Crowd Protests Antiwar March; More Than 200 Say They Represent Majority." Perhaps this "crowd" felt that way because they've grown accustomed to a media system that so frequently echoes their views, while keeping antiwar voices - representing the actual majority opinion - off the radar.
500,000 People Vanish in Washington, DC
By Ron Scott
The Detroit News
Monday 26 September 2005
Imagine 500,000 people marching down the meandering thoroughfares of Pennsylvania Avenue and 14th Street and Constitution Avenue in Washington, DC. They are headed for a date with destiny and the promise of peace, conjoined with a challenge for justice. How could they vanish from the headlines?
Rod Serling, the brilliant creator/writer of "The Twilight Zone," might have written this intro to one of his
teleplays during the 1960s. But it didn't happen then. It happened this weekend, with our media, in our country, in our time.
"They came from as far away as Alaska and California," reported Abayomi Azikiwe of the Pan African Newswire, "from Europe to the nation's capital itself, to make a clear statement that United States military forces should withdraw immediately from Iraq. Honest crowd estimates of the demonstration ranged from 500,000-600,000 (some even thought there were more) making it the largest demonstration in the capital since the winter of 2003."
Journalist Azikiwe rode the bus with 200 Detroiters who attended this national anti-war march in Washington, DC and stood on the Mall with thousands who watched speakers ranging from the Rev. Jesse Jackson to Cindy Sheehan to activist Curtis Muhammad from New Orleans. He provided a full report on this historic event.
But the corporate media was nowhere to be found. The demonstration was lost on CNN. It was buried on MSNBC. It barely escaped a muffle on NBC's "Meet the Press" and the old, reliable NPR (National Public Radio). If you had been watching C-SPAN, you would have seen the speakers (but not the march), but how many people watches C-SPAN?
The media failed to cover the largest antiwar demonstration in America since the Vietnam era. That's not happening in "The Twilight Zone." That is reality today.
Where were they? Covering local news at home? In Iraq? Or covering the Ashton Kucher/Demi Moore wedding?
No. They had a date with Rita. Celeb anchorpersons, clad in Tommy Hilfiger and St. John knits, were standing in knee-deep water as a backdrop. How many stories about Rita did we need? It's a tragedy, of course, but in Washington, a challenge to the Bush administration was in full gear, and the cameras, recorders, and reporters' notepads were missing. If it wasn't real, it would be science fiction.
The failure of the media to cover this, perhaps one of the most important events of this young century, challenges those who read this blog and those who consider themselves to be committed Americans on the left, right, and in between, to fight for full disclosure and total coverage of what's happening in our communities throughout the nation. We've seen too many "in-bed-with" media, too many laughing anchorpersons, and too many roving reporters who scream only after the story is over.
The Bush administration needs to be covered, and covered seriously. To any of you who remember history prior to 1980, lesser failures on the part of a President brought his resignation. That was Richard M. Nixon. Today, the chief executive of this country, and an administration which has clearly attempted to silence the media, needs to be accessed, researched, and critiqued - even when the winds are blowing in Texas.
The articles above are copyrighted material, the use of which may not have specifically authorized by the copyright owner. The material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of political, economic, democracy, First Amendment, technology, journalism, community and justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' as provided by Section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Chapter 1, Section 107, the material above is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this blog for purposes beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.