On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 16:26:07 -0400 "Joe R. Golowka" <joegolowka at earthlink.net> wrote:
> I think the relatively good coverage from bourgeois media is primarily caused by
> the fact that police beat up and arrested many reporters along with protestors.
> They were treated the same way protestors were - badly. If the cops are going
> to start beating up the media the media probably won't portray them in a good
> light.
Does the "Media" actually pay attention to its reporters? I thought this was ancient mythology, left over from some sort of impressionistic Newtonian physics. Doesn't the "new-hyper-modern-post-savvy-but-sexy-media" simply story-itself and adjust the reporters according to whatever puts a nice countenance in the corner of latest op-ed piece? I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that the reporters didn't have to get beaten up for the story to "make the news" or be "fit to print." Maybe it helped, who can say other than the editor-in-chef-du-jour. I suspect the Big Print Other is a bit more hip than one might give 'em credit for (I said hip, not Marxist). A tide is turning, perhaps just a ripple really, but there is an audience, a growing audience, for protest.news, and they'll sell more hardcopy if they stick the ink to the print=the.picture (there is a market for protestors getting smashed in the face, having their knuckles broken and coughing up blood)[those who side with the protestors enjoy the coverage, those who side against the protestors enjoy the coverage]. Good thing? Bad thing? Just a god-fucking-awful thing I guess.
How many people have to have their fingers crushed before *resistance*transformation* becomes more than a headline?
shadow of excess, ken