So why did CNN and MSNBC Highlight the Protests at the G20 Summit?

[FrenchieCat]

I was reading this OPed, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/opinion/05gill.html?_r=1

and ran into this paragraph:

You often wonder what visiting dignitaries make of your country; American presidents must think that the whole world is in a constant state of riot. Wherever they go, CNN is full of angry banners, burning flags and tear gas. I went and joined the London riot. It was depressingly flabby, and half-hearted. Not so much a demonstration as a queue of arcane special pleading groups, ranging from anarchists for bicycles (who all waited politely at the traffic lights) and one-world vegans. Altogether, they looked like a collective of European street mimes.

A couple of broken windows and teeth, and that was it.


It was just mightily suspicious to me at the time that the media was focusing so breathlessly on the protestors on the same day....showing that window being broken, again, and again, and again....and the same bloody guy being shown over and over again. They even had the protest in a small box at the bottom of the screen, even when they were showing Obama at the G20 Summit.

It reminded me of the Saddam statue, Private Jessica Lynch, pitchfork mobs ...all either totally manufactured or overblown.

It's not like there aren't protests at each of the g20 meetings....but we seldom hear about them, except for when they become occasionally deadly. The last big one reported on was BEFORE Bush took office. Then *poof* the protests disappear until now.





See, that's why I don't trust anything our fucked up media says.

But they had to have a motive. What was it?

[JI7]

1. same reason they are making a big thing of Michelle/Carla Bruni

and of course the Michelle and Queen "hug".

[FrenchieCat]

2. Distract so as not to report what is really being accomplished,

or just sensationalism cause it is there?

Which one?

[JI7]

3. a bit of both

they will always go with sensationalism. but even without any of that and everything was "boring" they would find some idiot wingnut to spew about how Obama is not really doing anything.

someone posted about some moran who was on claiming Bush was popular and treated like a rock star overseas and Obama isn't. i mean, how can anyone take that seriously.

[grantcart]

4. Good visuals. If they had a pillow fight they would have taken that

TV producers will always take a good visual over substance.

[FrenchieCat]

5. It's amazing then that they ignored their opportunity at great visuals

when they were selling us the Iraq war, while we marched.

They never really did show much of those marches on television....
I know, cause I had to go and try to find them on C-Span,
to see if I would see myself! :(

[FailureToCommunicate]

20. Yes. Give the masses 'bread and circus' (Juvenal -ancient Rome)

[Egnever]

6. They have been trying to tear him down since the day he was elected

One need only read here daily to see how well it is working.

A board dedicated to democratic causes and 30% of the posts are regurgitating whatever bile the media spewed today regardless of its basis in fact.

Bush was protested every where he went yet to watch the media you would think the world loved him. Obama is adored by most of the world and yet all of a sudden they have discovered protesters.

I wonder what they are up to! Not!

[Uzybone]

7. There were more press than protesters

that guy who broke the window might as well have been on the red carpet at the oscars because he alone was surrounded by so many cameras.

Their motive: they want the feelings of change and positivity to die.

[Captain Hilts]

8. They ALWAYS prefer conflict over cooperation. Nothing new. nt

[Better Believe It]

11. I prefer challenging the Wall Street crooks rather than cooperating with them.

We have nothing in common.

It's all about class.

[JayMusgrove]

9. I actually heard someone on Fox say "11 people died" in Strasbourg

I don't recall hearing it on any other channel. Googling for that, I see nothing.

Obama was to blame, of course, according to Fox.

[Better Believe It]

10. And if the media had ignored the protests would you have complained?

I can just hear it now.

"why did the mass media refuse to cover the anti-corporate protests?"

[DrToast]

15. Exactly!*

[FrenchieCat]

23. Covering anything in context is what I'm after.....

The protest should have been covered, but not given more importance than what they actually represented. When that happens, then the protestors are being used by a corporate agenda
for their own motives. If you cannot see that, then you cannot be helped. It ain't about an either/or proposition except to morons.

[Better Believe It]

28. And you'll be the "decider" on media coverage of protests?

No thanks!

[DrToast]

12. "See, that's why I don't trust anything our fucked up media says. "

Really? Isn't that what you're doing with this article?

Are you believing the one you want to be true?

[FrenchieCat]

13. NO.....I was reading an opinion not an article via that NYT OPed,

which is not the same thing as an article supposedly giving out facts. In otherwords, there is a difference between someone warning you that this is their opinion up front, and lies being paraded as facts.

[DrToast]

14. The point is you believe this opinion piece unwaveringly

Why aren't you questioning the author's motives?

[FrenchieCat]

17. On that first day at the G-Summit, I personally could see exactly

what was going on, in reference to the overblown coverage.

I discussed it here at DU as evidenced here ---> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8311208


So you see, I wasn't born yesterday, and I clearly remember that when we marched against
the war, the coverage was slim to none.

So when the corporate media starts covering a protest the way that it was done last Tuesday,
I don't need to question an author's motive who sees it as I do.

Now, why are you questionning me?
Is there something so special about what I'm saying,
that compels you to challenge me in the way that you are so doing?

See, I think the media stinks like shit.
and I've used my own wherewithall to come to that conclusion,
and if you want to question me instead of those who actually have the power to make their voices heard loudly (mainly the media), go ahead. :eyes:

[DrToast]

24. Yes, I recall...

Now, why are you questionning me?
Is there something so special about what I'm saying,
that compels you to challenge me in the way that you are so doing?

Because implying "The Corporate Media" is engaged in some sort of orchestrated plot to undermine Obama by showing pictures of protesters is pretty ridiculous. Especially after a week in which "The Corporate Media" has been gushing over Obama about how well he's doing in Europe.

Seriously, change a few words in your posts and you've got a right-winger's post complaining about how "The Liberal Media" is in the tank for Obama.

[FrenchieCat]

27. Interesting that you would label me "ridiculous" for questioning the media and its motives.....

and advise that I no better than a ditto-head. What insight you have compared to little ol' me! You are so superior and shit!

so with that I say, thanks for your wise words, DrToast. I don't know what I or others would think without them. :eyes:

[last_texas_dem]

16. I tend to think of the media covering protesters as a positive thing

Protesting is one of the few ways that the "little guy" can get his/her views out into media coverage dominated by "newsmakers."

Certainly there are times when the importance of a protest *could* potentially be overstated by the media; for example, if the media had treated the FReeper protest in which the port-o-potties outnumbered the protesters as something of particular significance... But there have also been times when the media covering the protests of ordinary citizens has demonstrated to other ordinary citizens that everyone in their country is nowhere close to being in unanimous agreement and reinforcing the idea that it's acceptable to let one's views be known to the public.

Generally, the media paying attention to protests is what they *should* be doing, IMHO. I mean, consider that on *any* issue, the majority of people in a country don't have passionate feelings about it and aren't likely to get out into the streets about it. That doesn't mean that the media shouldn't give coverage to those who do get out there. If the "silent majority" feels that coverage of protests misrepresents the view of the citizens of their country, they should be out in the streets themselves, fighting for "centrism" and "moderation."

[FrenchieCat]

18. I think the media "uses" protests as they see fit.

If it fits into their narrative, they will use them.
If it doesn't, they will ignore such as long as they can.

[biopowertoday]

19. I agree, covering protests is a good thing.

[FrenchieCat]

21. But covering them selectively can be manipulative.

[Skidmore]

22. I believe it's called "creating the narrative" in cable news vernacular.

Commentators on those channels refer to the process periodically. They fancy themselves as drafters of history rather than recorders of it. Many of them see themselves as kingmakers and powerbrokers rather than reporters.

[951-Riverside]

25. Have you lost your mind?

Just because "your guy" is in office doesn't mean the media has to stop covering protests. How would you like it if the media completely ignored anti-war/anti-bush protests to appease some delusional right wing dope who views life through politics not reality?

BTW, the protests weren't against Obama they have taken place every G20 summit and I've seen the media cover them every time.

[FrenchieCat]

26. Stop covering protests? My point is the fact that they are just now

"starting" to cover protests.

So no, I haven't lost my mind. Have you? Because if you are not asking yourself why now, and not before, then perhaps you enjoy being played.

As of your question;" How would you like it if the media completely ignored anti-war/anti-bush protests to appease some delusional right wing dope who views life through politics not reality?"

That is exactly what they did for 8 years. Doh! :crazy:

[Runcible Spoon]

31. You know very well Bush orchestrated media blackouts of things like political protests and

war casualties.

So Obama isn't issuing media blackouts. Good for him. Doesn't mean the media wouldn't have covered them if they weren't coerced NOT to. As much as I agree that there is a right-ward political slant to MSM, they will go for the big story every time. If they were merely covering what they wanted to, they would have given greater coverage to the anti-war protests, and they very well might have given it a conservative spin. As it is now, though, I have to say that there is more positive coverage of Obama than negative. And why wouldn't there be? MSM LOVES center/center-right corporatists who are camera-friendly, and that's Obama.

Really, you're just embarrassing yourself by pushing this Big Bad Media Conspiracy thing and thinking you're winning any brownie points with leftists or Obama fans with it. You keep stamping your little feet in indignation when people don't respond the way you want or to the extent you want to your posted items. You're going overboard with this and only a crazy person would continuously believe that Obama is getting any more negative media coverage than any other president, circumstances considered especially.

[Runcible Spoon]

29. Eggzactly.

I don't buy this whole "MSM WANTS TO UNDERMINE OBAMA *$#(&(*%##@" conspiracy theory. Obama is the best thing that ever happened to MSM's political coverage, and the vast majority gushes over him. And why wouldn't they? They love center/center-right politics, it's been good to them in so many ways.

I'm GLAD the protests were covered. After the Bush administration dictating media blackouts of our protests for 8 years, I'm tickled pink that Americans actually see that people in other countries are protesting the vile corporate rape of the global economy.

[FrenchieCat]

30. Here's where you run into a problem with your reasoning.....

ON the one hand you say..."I don't buy this whole "MSM WANTS TO UNDERMINE OBAMA *$#(&(*%##@" conspiracy theory."

ON the other hand, you say..."After the Bush administration dictating media blackouts of our protests for 8 years, I'm tickled pink"

So which is it? There is no conspiracy theory, or there was one, but not anymore? :shrug:

Funny how convenient this is for you, isn't it? :crazy:

[Runcible Spoon]

32. Yep, that's right.

Bush was VERY meticulous about media blackouts. Obama doesn't seem to care about restricting media access.

Why is that difficult for you to comprehend?

[FrenchieCat]

33. Well, we will agree to disagree....

I don't find "Big love" for Obama in the media.

He is described as boderline arrogant and cocky (i.e. code words for uppity). He is portrayed as having failed at the summits (both of them), and as taking on too much, or not coming out and saying things soon enough. He is either portrayed as too boring, or laughing unappropriately. He is too professerial, or to vague. They say he is blaming Bush (as though he shouldn't), and when he take responsibility, they wonder how many more times he can do this. Then they announce that he had better get things done now, because he is sure not to be popular later on. There's more.....

and don't let me get started with Fox!

But you can see what you want all you want.....
however, it still doesn't make what you say so.

[Political Heretic]

34. They weren't anti-Obama were they? I'm pretty glad the protests get attention.

As far as not hearing about the g20 protest, you do hear about them. I read about them nearly every time there's a meeting. I think 24/7 cable news does a lot to screw up reporting and "sensationalize" stuff. But this coverage wasn't that much different from Seattle WTO coverage so long ago, and it isn't every G20 protest that becomes as aggressive as these did.

Anyway, I don't know what the angle was, but no one was framing these are anti-Obama were they? I heard MSNBC asking that very question and saying no, they were more against the broader financial system...

[FrenchieCat]

35. Odd....but the G20 Summit protest in Washinton DC in July of last year

didn't get a box on CNN for an entire day. Sorry!

and yes, Seattle's protest was in 1999.....before Bush.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/46/wto-protests-in-seattle-1999

And they couldn't really frame them as protests against Obama, who just got to the office,
but I'm sure enough folks watching for a short time would still think so.

[Political Heretic]

36. That's true. I don't know. They weren't violent either though...

I'm not sure.

[Teaser]

37. cuz they punk ass chumps

.