>Find enough people w/shared agreement on
>something constructive and then just do it.
-That makes sense, but the fact of the matter is that those who call -for "bringing perpetrators to justice" are not excluded from rallies -organized by the WWP-backed coalition (at the S29 rally, I heard many -who spoke of it from the podium & among the crowd), so starting a new -one by underscoring the theme of "bringing perpetrators to justice" -is rather redundant.
It barely matters who speaks at such rallies-- most of the participants don't listen much less the media portraying the rally. What folks seem to studiously ignore is that rallies are to a large extent media events, yet they pretend that control of the images conveyed is irrelevant to the message. It is silly to expect people to show up to a rally that will, through its staging, convey a message different from what you as an activist want conveyed, even if the WWP puts up a token speaker. Who cares? The Heritage Foundation and CATO Institute regularly feature liberals at their events-- that doesn't change the message of their overall line up of speakers and policy prescriptions.
There is the famous story of ABC News doing a scathing story on the manipulation of the media through Reagan participating in photo ops that directly harmed the people pictured in the media events. The report showed each photo op with a voice over noting how much the people involved were screwed by the administration. Michael Deaver from the White House called up ABC afterwards and thanked them for the report, since he noted that more people would be influenced by seeing the images than would turn against them because of the commentary.
So if I know the image of a rally will inherently convey a message different from my own political viewpoint, why add one more body to that message. No token speaker changes its political meaning on camera.
-- Nathan Newman