The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
>Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 16:53:28 -0800 >From: ZNet Commentaries <sysop@zmag.org> >Subject: Sargent / Press The Press / Feb 21 > > >Sustainers PLEASE note: > >--> Sustainers can change your email address or cc data or temporarily >turn off mail delivery via: >https://www.zmag.org/sustainers/members > >--> If you pass this comment along to others -- periodically but not >repeatedly -- please explain that Commentaries are a premium sent to >Sustainer Donors of Z/ZNet and that to learn more folks can consult ZNet >at http://www.zmag.org > >--> Sustainer Forums Login: >https://www.zmag.org/sustainers/forums > >Today's commentary: >http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-02/21sargent.cfm > >================================== > >ZNet Commentary >Press The Press February 21, 2003 >By Lydia Sargent > >The only surprising thing to me about the mainstream media coverage of the >worldwide anti-war demonstrations on February 15 is that it was more >positive than usual. A few news reports actually communicated some of the >politics behind the protests and a certain amount of respect for the >people who had come out. > >This isn't saying much, I realize, but front page photos with headlines >"Millions March Against War" (Boston Globe, 2/26/2003) and "From Melbourne >to New York, Cries for Peace: Vast, Far-flung Protest Against War on Iraq" >(NYT, 2/16/2003) almost made the media seem anti-war itself when compared >with the skimpy, anti-left coverage of past years. Regardless of their >preferences, it was hard to ignore over ten million people demonstrating >worldwide. > >Of course, I also watched three hours of coverage of the New York >demonstrations broadcast on World Link satellite TV produced by a >coalition of media groups, including WBAI, Pacifica, Free Speech TV, >Working Assets Radio, and more. Amy Goodman of "Democracy Now," among >others, hosted the televised event. This coverage was very well done and >included many of the speeches and interviews with a broad cross-section of >people (feminists, labor activists, etc.), proving that we can do it much >better. > >There is no question that February 15 was an important day. It revealed to >the world, perhaps even more than the anti-capitalist globalization >actions, that there is an international movement of movements and that it >is working in solidarity. > >That said--there are two main things that concern me. First, many of the >people interviewed at the NY demonstration expressed the feeling, "now, >the government has to listen and stop this war." (Oddly, in a kind of >illogical dysfunction, most people speaking and being interviewed >indicated that they thought the war on Iraq was inevitable.) > >A similar dynamic occurred during Vietnam antiwar demonstrations. People >began to believe, despite all evidence, that one or two or three huge >demonstrations would make elites stop pursuing their militaristic agenda >and would actually stop the war. What happened, then, when such >outpourings failed? Many people's post-demonstration emotional highs >turned to resigned fatalism in a matter of weeks. > >Instead of seeing that progress was being made, people grew despondent >over not being at the finish line. The same could happen here: the >government rides this out, demonstrations get smaller and more isolated, >the media becomes more contemptuous, and that's that. The alternative, of >course, is for activists to have a more patient and long-term approach. > >Second, marching against this particular war and even stopping this war >without building a lasting movement will not alone change broader imperial >policy or imperialist institutions that will surely bring more wars. It >will not alone change an economic system that wages war on a large portion >of the world. Our movements need to diversify, deepen, and persist. > >But in addition to ongoing demonstrations and teach ins, the protests must >become more varied, creative, militant, and disruptive. They must happen >at all levels of society. > >If students strike on March 5; if hundreds of thousands of women join >hands around the capital to protest war and campaign for peace on March 8; >if teachers begin teaching about the war and the real reasons the U.S. >wants to go to war; if ministers preach anti-war messages; if community >groups canvas; if city councils pass resolutions and pressure state and >federal governments; if petition campaigns are set up; if labor unions >strike against war and for peace and justice (as is already threatened in >England, Ireland, Australia and numerous other countries), then there will >be a climate of social unrest that can stop a militaristic government from >running its agenda. > >But there is something else that has to happen. We have to go after the >media. For years activists have been complaining about and critiquing >mainstream media. Even while making these critiques, many seem surprised, >even upset, by the way our events and politics are covered in the very >media we have long been describing as incapable, institutionally and >ideologically, of ever giving our agenda any kind of legitimacy and >credence, much less coverage--as if we don't believe our own analysis. > >We forget at times that mainstream media (when not informing elites) is to >(quote Chomsky) "keep[ing] the rabble in line. [It] make[s] sure that we >are atoms of consumption, obedient tools of production, isolated from one >another, lacking any concept of a decent human life. We are to be >spectators in a political system run by elites blaming ourselves and each >other for what's wrong." > >Interestingly, given our analysis of how media exists to sell audience to >advertisers for profit, how it replicates and incorporates the values and >structures of corporate control in its own operations, and how it is owned >by and serves the same elites that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and >Powell represent, our media activism has often been confined to critiquing >the mainstream media, coupled with attempts to get our 20 second sound >bytes on the networks, as if that will solve the problem. > >Others have created "alternative" or "independent" media (not all of which >is so radical) and they try desperately to distribute it with little >money, in a society where methods of distribution are under the same >control as the mainstream media itself. Many of these efforts have been >incredibly successful (considering the odds), but many more have folded >for lack of funds or from burn out. Those that have survived are kept >small and can only be found by people who go looking for them, which, >ironically most often happens during a crisis or a war. > >So it is time to direct more of our protests toward the media. What we >want is for mainstream media to include peace and justice programming, >prepared by the peace and justice movement, in their daily reports. If >they do not agree to this demand, we picket their offices, occupy them if >necessary, and shut them down. > >What on earth is the justification for their continued existence? There is >no moral, ethical, or humanitarian reason for them to continue giving us >casualty estimates (from 500 to 1,000,000), as if they were discussing the >weather; or for them to debate calmly whether to assassinate the head of a >sovereign country, and then to take a poll on it, for Christ sakes; or for >them to act as if peace and justice are weird, idiosyncratic concepts that >they can't quite grasp. (And, by the way, for ease of local organizing, >mainstream media outlets are everywhere, in every city, every town, every >campus, and every locale). > >During the 1991 U.S. Invasion of Iraq, 50 or so local activists (most of >them involved in media) met together to form Boston Media Action (BMA). >Based on the skills and inclinations of the people involved, we decided to >work on three fronts: > >(1) To "Spread the Truth" through an aggressive poster and leafleting >campaign throughout the area, combined with stepped up attempts to >disseminate alternative media; > >(2) A Media Watch that would monitor local radio, TV, and print media and >produce periodic reports to be distributed to activists; > >(3) A Press the Press campaign to ensure that peace and justice reporting >and analysis by activists and writers appear regularly in local media outlets. > >Press the Press Campaign > >In January 1991, the BMA's Press the Press campaign began with a teach-in >on the truth behind the propaganda and the real U.S. reasons for going to >war. The event, attended by 500 activists, was filmed and recorded for >purposes of approaching local public radio and television stations, as >well as a local cultural newspaper to demand two hours a week of material >prepared by BMA. At that same time we circulated a Press the Press >declaration for people to sign, which would be submitted to the managers >of these stations along with the tapes. The declaration included the following: > >"Whereas the mainstream media refuse to allow alternative views of U.S. >motives in the mideast such as that the war was pursued to make the U.S. >world cop with the bills paid by the American people and/or whatever >country we can pass them on to; to dispel public desires for peace (called >the Vietnam syndrome); to legitimate future wars of U.S. intervention; to >undercut demands for a redistribution of income to education, housing, and >the general betterment of U.S. citizens; and to retain U.S. domination >over oil and oil pricing as an international economic lever; > >"It is therefore right and proper that peace and justice activists have >programming on mainstream radio and TV, and reporting in print media, that >includes discussions of peace, anti-militarism, conversion, and justice >issues, presenting views of critics of the Administration's policy; that >challenges the morality of war, domination, empire, and other inhumane >relations serving the rich and powerful; and that presents alternative >morality and vision that might better serve communities in need, and >everyone.." > >We submitted thousands of signed declarations and the sample videos to the >local public radio and TV station, using them to lobby for programming. We >also organized a one-day conference to gather more material and spread the >truth. After a period of time, if we didn't get any response, we were >prepared to picket the target media. If this had no affect, we were going >to escalate to civil disobedience, followed by occupations. But the U.S. >military had annihilated Iraq by the time we got past the first step and >we were not able to continue the campaign. > >It is time to start a new campaign to Press the Press, this time >nationally and internationally, in addition to continuing to create and >distribute our own media. It should be a long-term, strategic effort aimed >at changing existing repressive media institutions, just as we struggle to >change repressive financial institutions and governments. This Press the >Press campaign should also go after mainstream media distribution >companies. The latter ensure that our peace and justice views are not >visible in stores or on newsstands, TV, and radio. > >This campaign cannot wait. After the 1991 "Gulf War," TV Guide revealed >that much of the TV war coverage was produced by a public relations >company, who sold the war to the American people. When that news came out, >why didn't we set out to occupy or shut down every single mainstream media >institution in the U.S.? > >Because we didn't respond then, they continue to do it now, selling war as >an exciting TV drama ("Showdown With Saddam"), selling fear, selling U.S. >imperialism as our patriotic duty, even promoting it as a victory for >feminism (complete with military fashion statements) because "with war >looming, they [women] are closer to combat than ever." (NYT Sunday >Magazine, 2/16/ 2003). Let's begin a campaign to Press the Press, because >the news should keep us informed, not in line. > >Lydia Sargent is co-founder of South End Press and Z Magazine, where her >column "Hotel Satire" has appeared since 1988. A longer version of this >article appears in the March 2003 issue of Z Magazine, which will also be >available online at www.zmag.org > > > > > > > > >--- >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 27/01/03 _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk