People are always complaining that protests aren't covered by the major media, and at least lately, it's totally untrue. If there are enough people there, it will be covered. This one was covered by major newspapers - quite favorably, too - and I am pretty sure I saw it on Fox and CNN too. There was a wonderful, very sympathetic article in New York magazine this week, "Not Your Father's Anti-War Movement" - not about the DC protest but obviously timed to coincide with it. So perhaps it's time to stop boo-hooing about the media -- it's really not the problem right now. If anything, this march got too much media coverage -- anyone who watched it on C-SPAN seems to have been totally traumatized by the experience.
In re: Norman Solomon, 87 words isn't bad for TV. Probably more than the famines/droughts in Africa got.
Liza
on 9/30/05 6:05 PM, Doug Henwood at dhenwood at panix.com wrote:
> Stuart Elliott wrote:
>
>> Doug Henwood says that Nathan Newman, David Corn, and Marc Cooper,
>> and others are wrong to criticize the ANSWER's role in the anti-war
>> movement because the demonstration "received sympathetic coverage
>> in all the major media."
>>
>> But Norman Solomon complains "if you relied on television for your
>> news, you'd hardly know the protests happened at all. According to
>> the Nexis news database, the only mention on the network newscasts
>> that Saturday came on the NBC Nightly News, where the massive march
>> received all of 87 words."
>
> Silly me. I'm still stuck in the dead tree world. I read about it in
> several major newspapers.
>
> I guess the TV networks would have covered it if ANSWER hadn't been involved.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk