Hey, Media! Stop Blacking Out Progressive Protests
A sparsely attended Tea Party rally in Washington, D.C., on March 31 in support of federal spending cuts received generous media attention. One report (Slate, 3/31/11) suggested there was "at least one reporter for every three or four activists," and a Republican politician joked that there might be more journalists than activists at the event.
An antiwar rally in New York City on April 9 was in some respects very similar. Protesters were speaking out on an equally timely issue (wars in Afghanistan and Libya), and connecting them to the budget and near-government shutdown in Washington.
The difference? The ratio of activists to journalists. The antiwar protest had thousands of attendees--and received almost zero corporate media coverage.
According to the Nexis news database, the rally was apparently deemed not remotely newsworthy. The local New York Times didn't cover it--though it did have time for the D.C. Tea Party rally (4/1/11). NPR's Morning Edition (4/1/11) and the PBS NewsHour (3/31/11) reported on the Tea Party rally, which was also mentioned a few times on CNN and previewed on NBC's Today show (3/31/11).
Who did cover the antiwar rally? You could find reports from local New York outlets like the news site Gothamist (4/10/11), WABC and NY1, the left-wing Socialist Worker (4/11/11) and a handful of other sites.
What explains the wildly different treatment of the events? The organizers of the antiwar rally say they put serious resources into media outreach, and held a press conference the day before the event (which was reportedly attended by one reporter from Russia Today). The rally was framed as a way to talk about war and the budget debate, so it's hard to argue that it wasn't timely or relevant.
This isn't the first time this have focused on Tea Party events while ignoring progressive activism that was comparable or greater in size:
--In September 2009, a Tea Party march in Washington attracted tens of thousands of participants. So did a gay rights march the following month--and it elicited far less media attention (Extra!, 12/09).
--In June 2010, media demonstrated almost no interest in the progressive U.S. Social Forum, which drew thousands to Detroit. A tiny Tea Party convention in Nashville earlier in the year was widely covered (Extra!, 9/10).
--Two thousand protesters marched on the Washington offices of Koch Industries on April 5 to protest Charles and David Koch's funding of an array of right-wing interest groups. Few media were on hand to cover the event (FAIR Blog, 4/5/11)
It's time for to media explain why it seems that any Tea Party event, no matter how small, is considered far more newsworthy than progressive citizen activism.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
A sparsely attended Tea Party rally in Washington, D.C., on March 31 in support of federal spending cuts received generous media attention. One report (Slate, 3/31/11) suggested there was "at least one reporter for every three or four activists," and a Republican politician joked that there might be more journalists than activists at the event.
An antiwar rally in New York City on April 9 was in some respects very similar. Protesters were speaking out on an equally timely issue (wars in Afghanistan and Libya), and connecting them to the budget and near-government shutdown in Washington.
The difference? The ratio of activists to journalists. The antiwar protest had thousands of attendees--and received almost zero corporate media coverage.
According to the Nexis news database, the rally was apparently deemed not remotely newsworthy. The local New York Times didn't cover it--though it did have time for the D.C. Tea Party rally (4/1/11). NPR's Morning Edition (4/1/11) and the PBS NewsHour (3/31/11) reported on the Tea Party rally, which was also mentioned a few times on CNN and previewed on NBC's Today show (3/31/11).
Who did cover the antiwar rally? You could find reports from local New York outlets like the news site Gothamist (4/10/11), WABC and NY1, the left-wing Socialist Worker (4/11/11) and a handful of other sites.
What explains the wildly different treatment of the events? The organizers of the antiwar rally say they put serious resources into media outreach, and held a press conference the day before the event (which was reportedly attended by one reporter from Russia Today). The rally was framed as a way to talk about war and the budget debate, so it's hard to argue that it wasn't timely or relevant.
This isn't the first time this have focused on Tea Party events while ignoring progressive activism that was comparable or greater in size:
--In September 2009, a Tea Party march in Washington attracted tens of thousands of participants. So did a gay rights march the following month--and it elicited far less media attention (Extra!, 12/09).
--In June 2010, media demonstrated almost no interest in the progressive U.S. Social Forum, which drew thousands to Detroit. A tiny Tea Party convention in Nashville earlier in the year was widely covered (Extra!, 9/10).
--Two thousand protesters marched on the Washington offices of Koch Industries on April 5 to protest Charles and David Koch's funding of an array of right-wing interest groups. Few media were on hand to cover the event (FAIR Blog, 4/5/11)
It's time for to media explain why it seems that any Tea Party event, no matter how small, is considered far more newsworthy than progressive citizen activism.
A sparsely attended Tea Party rally in Washington, D.C., on March 31 in support of federal spending cuts received generous media attention. One report (Slate, 3/31/11) suggested there was "at least one reporter for every three or four activists," and a Republican politician joked that there might be more journalists than activists at the event.
An antiwar rally in New York City on April 9 was in some respects very similar. Protesters were speaking out on an equally timely issue (wars in Afghanistan and Libya), and connecting them to the budget and near-government shutdown in Washington.
The difference? The ratio of activists to journalists. The antiwar protest had thousands of attendees--and received almost zero corporate media coverage.
According to the Nexis news database, the rally was apparently deemed not remotely newsworthy. The local New York Times didn't cover it--though it did have time for the D.C. Tea Party rally (4/1/11). NPR's Morning Edition (4/1/11) and the PBS NewsHour (3/31/11) reported on the Tea Party rally, which was also mentioned a few times on CNN and previewed on NBC's Today show (3/31/11).
Who did cover the antiwar rally? You could find reports from local New York outlets like the news site Gothamist (4/10/11), WABC and NY1, the left-wing Socialist Worker (4/11/11) and a handful of other sites.
What explains the wildly different treatment of the events? The organizers of the antiwar rally say they put serious resources into media outreach, and held a press conference the day before the event (which was reportedly attended by one reporter from Russia Today). The rally was framed as a way to talk about war and the budget debate, so it's hard to argue that it wasn't timely or relevant.
This isn't the first time this have focused on Tea Party events while ignoring progressive activism that was comparable or greater in size:
--In September 2009, a Tea Party march in Washington attracted tens of thousands of participants. So did a gay rights march the following month--and it elicited far less media attention (Extra!, 12/09).
--In June 2010, media demonstrated almost no interest in the progressive U.S. Social Forum, which drew thousands to Detroit. A tiny Tea Party convention in Nashville earlier in the year was widely covered (Extra!, 9/10).
--Two thousand protesters marched on the Washington offices of Koch Industries on April 5 to protest Charles and David Koch's funding of an array of right-wing interest groups. Few media were on hand to cover the event (FAIR Blog, 4/5/11)
It's time for to media explain why it seems that any Tea Party event, no matter how small, is considered far more newsworthy than progressive citizen activism.