---There's some really rich irony in the role that Gitlin has played since 9-11 in articles and interviews with the media. Gitlin wrote a great first book called *The Whole World Is Watching*, which got him established as a left sociologist, which carefully examined and critiqued the way the media framed anti-war protests during the Vietnam War. In a nutshell he did a masterful job of showing how the media sought out certain 'representatives' of the movement who fit the image of the movement that editors sought to present to the US public. That the framing of teh anti-war movement contributed greatly to the US populace's misinformed view of the movement was one of Gitlin's findings. Typically the media sought out those who would either act out roles that revealed how out of touch it was with the mainstream or sought out those in the movement who would make statements that concurred with the media's frame of the movement. Gitlin in the 1960's and early 70's was a leader trying to figure out strategies to deal with media framing, in the 1980's he had written this book unravelling the way the media frames anti-war protestors/activists/intellectuals as out of touch with the mainstream, and by the 1990's he worked with the media to portray anti-war opposition according to the frame that fit the media's dominant frame (in the most recent war this would be 'well intended but naive..and insensitive to the victims of 9-11). Gitlin now has the media's ear alas, yet his social democratic instincts receive little if any attention in the national dialogue nonetheless. It is kind of sad to see Gitlin write these pieces because they are so unlike his *The WHole World is Watching*. That, in lieu of an argument with the critique found in the writings of, say, Aijaz Ahmad, Immanuel Wallerstein, Tariq Ali, Yacov Ben Efrat, Robin Blackburn, he instead resorts to the recitation of the dominant frame within which the media discuss anti-war opposition, namely "they aren't sensitive to the victims..". That a goodly number of 9-11 relatives of victims have made quite stong statements that they don't believe that the bombing campaign that Gitlin supports will bring peace seems lost on Gitlin. Or that when he attacks Roy, Chomsky, etc. he is also attacking the integrity of persons like Rosa Parks by equating opposition to the bombardment of Afg. with 'insensitivity to 9-11 victims. Parks along with some 50 odd other celebrities and activists signed a petition early on calling for Bush to not bomb Afg. This argument that Gitlin makes fits the frame in the dominant media (recall that the NYT has given victims who oppose the bombing almost no attention, even misrepresenting a vigil held by family members opposed to the bombing as simply a 'vigil of 9-11 victims' families...). It does little to contribute to the left debate on the 'war on terrorism'. It is almost as if Gitlin, in a defense of the War on Drugs sought to convince readers that those who don't support the War on Drugs somehow are insensitive to the (real) sufferings of parents who have lost their children to driveby shootings. Why not instead take on the critique of the war developed in the recent writings of Blackburn, Wallerstein, Ahmad, or Efrat and respond in kind with a well worked out response? To do so would not win him more attention from the mainstream media, since their frame doesn't allow for a serious engagement, let alone even acknowledgement, of the left's anti-war position. However, it would seem that that would be the least that we could and should expect of a social democratic scholar of Gitlin's capacities.
Steve
Stephen Philion Lecturer/PhD Candidate Department of Sociology 2424 Maile Way Social Sciences Bldg. # 247 Honolulu, HI 96822