Tim Gallegher
Let them dream they are still in the 60's. They are actually funny trying to make themsleves important. You do know that it is all about them, don't you?
Posted on 03/10/2003 10:06:15 PM PST by Bernard Marx
Anti-war murmur grew with little press coverage
By Tim Gallagher March 9, 2003
'The first casualty when war comes is truth," Sen. Hiram Johnson said in 1917.
This time, however, the truth was wounded before the first missile was fired.
This time, it was the news media that did not tell the truth. Now that we have the perspective of a few months it is obvious that the news media was very slow to recognize and report the burgeoning number of Americans who opposed war with Iraq, at least until a stronger case for war is built.
The typical wartime condition is something different. In past wars, the military tried to control the news media's access so that the military could, to some extent, control public opinion. (There is potential for that problem in this conflict, but that's a column for another day.)
In this case, however, it was the media censoring itself.
In the months following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, news coverage focused on the White House's message that America still was under siege. We needed to protect ourselves while we routed international terrorists. The White House deftly moved the bull's-eye from Osama bin Laden to al-Qaida to Saddam Hussein. A nation still salving its wounds seemed eager to follow along without much questioning. President Bush's popularity soared.
And the media went right along.
Late last fall, something changed. Americans began asking whether the evidence about Iraq's weapons required an act as drastic as war. How did we get from bin Laden to war with Iraq so quickly? Americans took to the streets in numbers not seen since the Vietnam War protests of the 1960s.
The signs were there, the chants and the clashes with the cops. The only thing missing was the news coverage. The protests were covered, but not to any large degree.
For weeks, the protests went on. Yet, the coverage focused more on who was counting the crowd most accurately, the police or the organizers.
Still an anti-war murmur grew into a buzz and then a dining room conversation. Letters to the editor appeared from ordinary people who did not march in protest, but who questioned the government's response. Other nations started opposing the start of a war. The protester numbers swelled. Finally, the media started covering them.
(I make no exception here for the Ventura County Star. We were as slow to recognize the opposition as any newspaper or network.)
It was a clear-cut case of self-censorship. Many events conspired to make us less than stellar in fulfilling that always-important role of disinterested observer. We are supposed to cover the news, not make judgments about whether we agree with it.
There was a patriotic fervor in the country, a feeling that "We" had been attacked and "We" had to do something about it. The administration proposed to stomp over our privacy and free speech protections in the name of the war on terrorism. And large numbers of Americans seemed to say, "Go right ahead." Public opinion polls showed Americans were willing to trade their freedoms for freedom from terrorism. The same polls demonstrated the president's enormous popularity.
Maybe the protests were just another sign of that radical minority and damned if they were going to grab the spotlight.
That logic was wrong. Just as it is wrong for news media to swallow the government's logic on every issue, it is wrong for us to dismiss its critics by failing to cover their protests.
Protests are not, as many would have you believe, un-American. Protesting is a sign that American democracy is strong. That it is not only your right, but also it is your duty, to protest actions of the government when you think it is wrong.
What makes American government far superior to the dictatorship that rules Iraq is our willingness to allow the questions and the protests. America allows its citizens to complain when it thinks the government is wrong, and then to enjoy the protections that government's Constitution affords.
It is the job of our news media, which enjoys those same constitutional protections, to report these actions without bias or censorship.
-- Tim Gallagher is editor and president of the Ventura County Star. His column appears Sundays. He can be reached at 655-5838 or through e-mail at gallagher@insidevc.com.
After 9-11, for the first time since World War II, the media actually began acting in a slightly pro-American fashion. But of course it couldn't last very long with "patriots" like Gallagher on the job. Now, at the first possible excuse, he has to divest himself of any responsibility for saying or doing anything that might appear to be in the nation's best interests. So he's taking it all back and doing the unthinkable: blaming the media!!
I seldom bother with this rag but I need a painting contractor so I bought Sunday edition for the ads. I also wanted to check the reporting on the Freepers who conducted a pro-Administrtion demonstration this past weekend. (Next time holler - I'm in Camarillo and will show up with bells on!)
The "coverage" was just as I expected. It equivocated and gave both sides almost equal weight but tilted toward the anti-war rallies. Then, just below the main story, there was a sidebar hyping a big anti-war rally next weekend at the Ventura Pier sponsored by Citizens for Peaceful Resolutions, Not in Our Name and People in Black. I think we've heard of some of those organizations before. It's called "Hands Across the Pier." Go to www.c-p-r.net for more info (says the Star). Anyone up to a counter-protest? We could call it Middle Fingers Across the Pier. Or Traitors on the Other Side of the Pier, or something like that. I'm joking of course, but a theme would help.
I really dislike this guy and most of the people he hires to produce what is known locally by intelligent people as "The Red Star." Be respectful and logical when you email him, but by all means email him!!
Let them dream they are still in the 60's. They are actually funny trying to make themsleves important. You do know that it is all about them, don't you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.