They'll 'take the city,' we'll leave their ideas

Globe and Mail (Toronto) ^ | June 26, 2002 | Jeffrey Simpson

[Clive]

'Take the city" is the slogan for the disparate protesters set to demonstrate in Ottawa against globalization, capitalism, multinational corporations and just about everything else during the G8 summit.

Not "Gather in the city," or "Protest in the city," but "Take the city," a slogan carefully chosen to suggest action, including violent action.

Some, but by no means all, of the protest's organizers have been making an alarming distinction among kinds of violence. Violence against people (police excepted, of course) is off limits, but violence against property is okay.

That means windows can be smashed, public buildings trashed, police cars assaulted and, if necessary, private businesses attacked, because in this twisted way of seeing the world, private property and the government that protects it are the enemies of liberation.

The threat or use of violence is, of course, condoned only by some of the demonstrators. But the threat is essential for the protesters' overall strategy, which is to maximize media coverage of their activities.

A peaceful protest, such as the one earlier this week in Calgary, becomes a one-day wonder: a minute or two on television, a picture and a story in the newspapers. Something more is needed for the seasoned protesters who know well the proclivities of the modern media. That something is physical confrontation with the forces of order, a confrontation that will attract television cameras like bees to honey.

How many times, for example, did we see replayed the scene of the RCMP officer pepper spraying demonstrators in Vancouver? There was one scuffle, yet it seemed from the coverage as if that singular event represented the entire relationship between police and protesters. As for the Asia-Pacific summit itself: Who cared, or cares?

The same thing happened at the hemispheric meeting in Quebec City. Who can remember what the leaders there actually discussed, compared to the images of tear gas, burning cars, and the fence surrounding central Quebec City? My own paper, for example, carried almost the same number of stories about the demonstrations as the summit itself. As for the CBC's coverage, it was protest central until near the very end of the conference.

The demonstrations have not even begun, yet the protesters are already accusing the police of planning violent tactics. Under those circumstances, how can the police win the spin wars of media coverage? They cannot, except that happily the vast bulk of Canadians abhor planned violence and evince little sympathy for the No Logoists, Trotskyists, Marxists, eco-feminists, Indian militants, public-sector union leaders, NDP MPs, radical students of every hue, and assorted other demonstrators whose cause keeps getting resoundingly thumped at the ballot box.

At the summit itself, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien has already been sandbagged before he bangs his gavel.

Mr. Chrétien had wanted, even insisted, that the summit be about plans to help Africa. The focus would be on Africa's challenge, and member countries of the G8 were to stump up specific amounts to assist the continent as part of a multinational effort. Mr. Chrétien announced $500-million for the package from Canada, plus increases of 8 per cent per year in foreign aid.

Alas for him, U.S. President George W. Bush believes in going his own way in foreign policy. His audience is U.S. public opinion, not leaders at some multilateral gathering.

Before the Kananaskis summit, Mr. Bush announced his own plans for Africa. He topped that off with a policy speech on the Middle East, which he will presumably want to discuss in Alberta.

The Americans demanded that the G8 participate in a $10-billion plan to help Russia decommission weapons. The U.S. would pay half; the other countries, including Canada, were supposed to pay the other half. The Americans will insist also that everyone discuss terrorism, as the U.S. defines it and plans to combat it.

So much, then, for the focus on Africa. Some attention will be given to the continent, but not as much as Mr. Chrétien had hoped, no matter how much he argues the contrary.

Speaking of not mattering, it wouldn't matter in the slightest what the leaders agreed to in Alberta for the demonstrators. They profoundly disagree with the entire economic system of the Western world and distrust the elected officials -- social democratic, liberal or conservative -- that run it within those countries.

Africa, aid to Russia, terrorism, the Middle East -- they don't care much about any of these, because their critique, such as it is, of the modern world is as total as its optics are irresistible for the media.

[Billthedrill]

Under those circumstances, how can the police win the spin wars of media coverage?

Uh...this question sounds kind of strange coming from a major city daily newspaper. If they don't know, who in the world are they asking?

[m1911]

There was a post here a while back about the trend for reporting in the third person, this is more of the same. When they talk about their editorial decisions as if they are an uncontrollable force of nature, you know the real spin is on.